Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL
POWERS) BILL (By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

MERSEYSIDE PASSENGER TRANSPORT
BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Glasshouse Sector

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the glasshouse section of the horticulture industry in the light of its current problems.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): The prospects for all sectors of the horticulture industry are currently being examined with the farmers' unions. I hope to inform the House of the results of this examination in the near future.

Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that British glasshouse growers are still being obliged to pay more for oil than their Dutch competitors pay for gas to provide the equivalent amount of energy? Is he aware, further, that the British growers have been to the British gas industry but have been informed that the gas industry cannot provide continuity

of supplies of gas throughout the year, which means that it is not possible to rectify the present situation? Is not this totally unsatisfactory, and is it not vital that something should be done to stimulate and help this very important industry?

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend has raised two points. On the first, I can assure him that the Government attach great importance to the Dutch Government's policy of equalising the prices of gas and oil. On my hon. Friend's second point, I understand that in recent months there has been a change in the position of British Gas in that it is now in principle prepared to supply gas to glasshouse growers. I can assure my hon. Friend that if there is any help which my Ministry can give, especially in relation to the technical aspects, I hope that both he and his growers will not hesitate to approach us on them.

Mr. Wells: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the lack of continuity of supply and the lack of reliability of gas to which the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) referred are really the cause of the anxiety? The willingness of British Gas is neither here nor there. What concerns growers is the lack of assurance that the gas will be there every frosty night. Can the hon. Gentleman say when we shall have the outcome of the review to which he referred?

Mr. Strang: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I take his observation and we shall look at this. On his second point, we intend to bring forward the results of the review next month.

Potatoes

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the size of the potato crop for 1976 compared with the previous two years.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): The 1976–77 potato crop is provisionally estimated at 4·8 million tonnes compared with actual figures of 6·79 million and 4·55 million tonnes for 1974–75 and 1975·76 respectively.

Mr. Canavan: As the 1976 crop was bigger than the 1975 crop and as the total supply of potatoes, taking imports and exports into account, was also greater


in 1976 than in 1975, what possible justification is there for a 60 per cent. increase in the retail price of potatoes? When will the Government do something about this racket instead of standing by idly while rich farmers or merchants, or both, make a huge killing at the expense of the poor housewife?

Mr. Bishop: My hon. Friend should not overlook the steps that we have taken to increase the supply of potatoes. They have a bearing on the price. They include the lifting of the ban on the import of main crop potatoes, the ban on the export of ware potatoes, the change in riddle sizes and so forth. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has kept this matter of profits and prices under review, and there has been no evidence of excessive profits. In a situation where there is a shortage due to weather and other factors, there are bound to be good profits in some parts and losses in others. We have to take into account the general shortage of potatoes which has had this effect on prices.

Mr. Jopling: Does the Minister realise that one of the reasons why housewives have had to pay astronomical prices for the last two seasons has been the Government's failure to provide a guaranteed price sufficient to ensure that an adequate acreage was planted to prevent these high prices? Will he give an assurance that this time, in the ensuing review, there will be a guaranteed price sufficient to see that enough acres are planted to ensure that housewives do not again have to pay these astronomical prices?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that last year the increased hectarage was 19,000. As he will know, that is 46,000 acres, which was a 10 per cent. increase on the year before. He will be aware that the guaranteed price is not the only factor. He will recall that two years ago the price was £28 a ton and that it went to £40 a ton. The future guarantee is still under review. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that there are other factors and that the weather makes a difference.

Mr. Torney: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the system of fixing the acreage planted is correct and works in the interests not only of the farmer but of the

consumer? Does he feel that there is some ground for examining the position of the Potato Marketing Board on the basis of whether consumers should be more favourably represented thereon?

Mr. Bishop: I think my hon. Friend will recognise that a delicate balance has to be struck between the amount and the acreage planted. The output, of course, depends upon weather and other factors, and these matters have to be taken into account. It does not follow that a drought one year will be followed by a drought in another year. We have to proceed against the possibility of a surplus. As for the Potato Marketing Board, my hon. Friend will realise that the potato regime is being examined. We shall bear in mind what he has had to say.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the increased costs facing the farmer, which to a large extent are a result of the Government's policies, must be recognised when setting the fall-back price this year? Will he give an undertaking that he will take this fully into account?

Mr. Bishop: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all these factors are being taken into account in the present review.

Production Targets

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether Her Majesty's Government still adhere to the food production targets set out in the document "Food from Our Own Resources".

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is still hoping that the agriculture industry will achieve a year-on-year growth of 2½ per ce0t. as expressed in the Government's White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources".

Mr. Neubert: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will outline progress made on implementation of the policies announced in "Food from Our Own Resources".

Mr. Strang: The Government's agricultural policy will continue to be one of expansion to achieve import-savings on the lines described in "Food from Our


Own Resources". Despite the set-backs suffered last year as a result of the weather, the agriculture industry is basically healthy and is capable of expanding its net product at an average rate of 2½ per cent. per annum. The commodity objectives described in the White Paper are still valid. Given normal weather, production should recover in 1977–78 and we should see progress towards the expansion aims described in the White Paper.

Mr. Ridley: As we are already 20 per cent. down on the production targets at the time of the White Paper, and as we have lost 2½ per cent. a year for two years, does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is running 25 per cent. behind production targets and that this does not inspire confidence anywhere? Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman did something to make the reality match the plans in the White Paper?

Mr. Strang: No, I reject that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the White Paper set out, first, the Government's commitment to expansion—more importantly, commodities in which expansion was most in the national interest—and indicated an overall rate of expansion that we could hope to achieve by 1980, The White Paper could not predict the actual level of production in any particular year. I think that the hon. Gentleman is running out of excuses for criticising the Government when he resorts to blaming us for the weather.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has referred to expansion on the lines of the White Paper but he has not said whether he adheres precisely to the targets of the White Paper. Will he do so? Will he say how on earth those targets will be achieved given the decline in livestock numbers, the decline in real farm income and the decline in investment?

Mr. Strang: Once again, the hon. Gentleman has to face the facts. It is true that in a major commodity where we want expansion—namely, milk—there was a set-back last year. That set-back was due to the weather. If the hon. Gentleman reads the annual review White Paper this year, he will see that the decline in the dairy herd has been reversed. We must concentrate on productive agricultural capacity.

Mr. Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the prosperity of agriculture could be affected significantly if we were to change the system of taxation for all those in agriculture? Does he agree that a rolling programme system whereby good years could be taken with bad years would be more helpful than the present situation, in which farmers are forced to pay out tax when they can least afford it?

Mr. Strang: Yes, I agree. My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I am sure he is aware that in his first major speech to the Farmers Club after becoming Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food my right hon. Friend pointed out that he was having a very hard look at the matter with a view to trying to do something for the benefit of the agriculture industry.

Mr. Peyton: Is it not a fact that production has fallen by about 9 per cent. since the White Paper was issued whereas the White Paper indicated that a rise of about 23 per cent. should be possible? In other words, the Government have fallen very far behind. Perhaps it is coyness that causes the Minister of Agriculture to leave his hon. Friend to answer this Question.

Mr. Strang: No, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. First, there can be no argument—the industry recognises this—that the factor above all that influenced the level of production last year was the exceptional drought. Secondly, my right hon. Friend's package following the drought helped the industry. His decision to introduce a special subsidy for pig producers is ample evidence of his determination to encourage agricultural production in Britain.

Mr. Peyton: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that production is down by 23 per cent. whereas the White Paper indicated the hope of an increase?

Mr. Strang: Obviously this depends on the commodities to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring. We are not disputing that production last year was disappointing. We have made that clear in our White Paper. We are pointing out that the reason for that fall in production—everyone in the House knows this—was the exceptional drought.

Mr. Hardy: Is it not quite astonishing that the Opposition, who purport to be familiar with and aware of rural problems and the methods of farm production, see no relationship between production and the weather?

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is preposterous when we are reduced to a situation in which the Opposition Front Bench attacks the Government for a fall in production that is attributable to the drought.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the exceptionally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment, even if it does not rain.

Green Pound

Mr. Dykes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how long he considers that the green pound calculations for individual products within the common agricultural policy can remain unadjusted in relation to the level of the £ sterling's value in international transactions.

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the value of the green pound.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): The Commission's proposals for agricultural prices for 1977–78 are now under discussion in Brussels. It would be premature to say now if or when a change in the green pound would be in the national interest.

Mr. Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman seize this unique opportunity to be straightforward and direct with the House? Does he think that the bulk of the eventual adjustments in the green pound will come after the negotiation of phase three?

Mr. Silkin: The point of being straightforward is to tell the House exactly what one believes from the beginning right the way through. My first major speech in the House on agriculture was on 22nd October, which was within a very few days of having taken over the office. On that occasion I made clear my views on the green pound. I have not altered my views in the meantime.

Mr. Brotherton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's refusal to bring the green pound more into line with the value of the £ sterling aounts to national dishonesty? Is he aware that that dishonesty not only affects our credibility abroad among our friends but works adversely against our agriculture industry?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman has raised two questions and I crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, for trying to answer both of them. As for alleged dishonesty, what we are talking about is a Community budget of £2,575 million, of which about £1,400 million is devoted to items that are of no real benefit to this country. We are talking about mcas of £400 million.
In the light of all that, the truth is that Great Britain pays into the Community budget a great deal of money and a great percentage. It is not a question of taking out; it is a question of putting in as well.

Mr. Gould: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the green rates were introduced by the French and Germans in their own interest long before we became members of the EEC? Will he further confirm that the German producer benefits much more substantially from the green deutschemark than the British consumer benefits from the green pound, even though this fact is disguised by the way that EEC food prices are linked far more to the "snake" currencies—in other words, to the deutschemark—than to the pound?

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend is right. He is a good historian, and there was a long history to this matter before we entered the Community, going back to 1969. It is also true that the green currency basis has changed from gold to the dollar, to the average of all the currencies, and now to the "snake", which, as my hon. Friend points out, means effectively the German mark.

Mr. Henderson: Whatever the global aspect of the amount, there are certain sectors of the agriculture industry which are particularly vulnerable to the effects of the green pound. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the beef sector is being adversely affected by the Irish Government's action on the green pound


and that this effect is serious for many producers in different parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Silkin: There are a couple of Questions later on the Irish representative rate. I rather assume that the hon. Gentleman's question might well come up then. In any event, I suppose that this is a kind of invitation to see that it does. Let me, however, put this to the hon. Gentleman. A change in the value of the green pound does not necessarily help all sectors of agriculture. One can be selective about this. It puts up the prices of cereals but it does not automatically put up the guaranteed price of milk or the beef target price. It does not necessarily put up the price of pigs, poultry or eggs.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that an adjustment of the green pound could be the last straw that will break the consumer's back, and that it could well destroy our chances of economic survival and, with them, the future of the Government? Can he assure the House and the Labour movement that he will be absolutely firm with the farmers and with the EEC in this matter?

Mr. Silkin: No hon. Member in this House has ever suggested that we should devalue the green pound so that it reached a par with the £ sterling. That would be total lunacy, not only for the country but for the agriculture industry too. The green pound happens to be a national asset and I regard it as in my trusteeship.
Mr. Peyton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will prove a good trustee and a reliable one. Is it not the case that merely a marginal devaluation of the green pound would have saved a great deal of damage being done to the pig industry? Will he learn from that and take action to save other producers in other areas of the industry from equal damage?

Mr. Silkin: What the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting—I hope that I am not being too coy about this—is that, although the real reasons for the difficulties about pigmeat are concerned with the totally unfair and inequitable method of calculation of the mcas, if we were to be as craven as Governments have

been in the past we would give away something that is of national importance in order to get something we deserve. That I do not agree with.

Food Prices (Transitional Steps)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his last estimate of the effects on the retail prices of butter, cheese, beef, pork, bacon and eggs, respectively, of the remaining transitional steps, as agreed by the Government, from 1970 to 1974 as part of the Treaty of Accession to the EEC.

Mr. John Silkin: Retail food prices depend on many factors, including the extent to which market prices are influenced by institutional prices and the costs of processing and distribution. The effects of transitional steps cannot, therefore, be accurately predicted. I can, however, indicate the equivalent in retail price terms of the remaining two transitional changes in CAP institutional prices. These are: butter, plus 12p per lb; cheese, plus 5p per lb; beef, plus 4p per lb; pork and bacon, plus 1p to 2p per lb; and eggs, plus 1p to 2p per dozen. The figures assume present levels of CAP prices and an unchanged green pound.

Mr. Spearing: Do not those figures show the unwisdom of tying ourselves to the European agriculture system? Will my right hon. Friend give the figures in either pence per lb or percentage terms of the cost of each of those commodities imported from outside the EEC that would be diverted to EEC taxes or levies?

Mr. Silkin: That is a rather difficult calculation to make, and I would need time to consider it. I shall certainly write to my hon. Friend about it. The proportion of retail prices represented by these transitional step increases is rather alarming. The smallest increase is 2 per cent. in the case of pork and bacon, and it goes up to 20 per cent. in the case of butter.

Mr. Marten: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the EEC's annual report on agriculture, which has just arrived in the Vote Office and makes it quite clear that every one of the 13 major foodstuffs was more expensive in 1976, and substantially more expensive in some cases in the Common Market than outside on


the world market? How much longer must we go on taking these Common Market prices and not world prices?

Mr. Silkin: It is probably fair to say, and the hon. Gentleman can make his own assessment from it, that the Commission bases its world price comparatives on the lowest offer price. That may be for a large consignment or a small one. This point seems to me to be more concerned with the question of levies than with comparatives.

Mr. Loyden: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in spite of the figures given today for commodity price increases, consumers in the shops are faced with prices far in advance of those he has quoted to the House? Does he accept that this leads to a demand from the consumer for a complete reappraisal of our association with the Market, because people have reached the point at which food prices are becoming absolutely intolerable and which will threaten the social contract in the very near future?

Mr. Silkin: I cannot dissemble. I have had serious doubts about the efficient working of the common agricultural policy for some time.

Mr. Farr: Is not one of the most serious effects on the price of beef the fact that it is predicted that in 1978 the Community will be half a million tons short of production? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to stimulate production at home?

Mr. Silkin: Beef production presents a difficulty, but it is a difficulty which results inevitably from a cycle. We came out very well from a dangerous trough in the cycle in 1974, and I regard us as being tolerably on target—I stress the word "tolerably". On the supply of beef, I believe—this was one of the things which was obtained at the December meeting of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels—in a more liberal importation system.

New Zealand Butter

Mr. John Ellis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the breakdown in the current retail price of New Zealand butter between shipboard price in New Zealand, transport cost, EEC

taxes or levies and the wholesale to retail margin in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bishop: Under the terms of Protocol 18 of the Treaty of Accession, New Zealand butter is imported at a fixed price. This is currently £610·39 per tonne, plus the monetary compensatory amount, which is presently £205 per tonne. The butter now being sold at a first-hand price of between £1,048 to £1,057 per tonne was imported some months ago when monetary compensatory amounts and levies differed from those now applying. The average retail price reported for December was 50·5p per lb. Information on shipboard prices in New Zealand and details of transport arrangements and costs are not readily available.

Mr. Ellis: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Are the New Zealanders willing to send more butter this year, and are there more disincentives to doing this? Is there any danger of their quota being cut?

Mr. Bishop: My hon. Friend will know that the Council agreed in June last year to allow imports of 125,000 tonnes, 120,000 tonnes and 115,000 tonnes of butter for 1978, 1979 and 1980 respectively. He will also be aware that the New Zealanders were never able to supply more than a proportion of our requirements. The quantities that we require after those amounts will be subject to negotiation.

Mr. Jay: Is my hon. Friend aware that the levy that we are imposing on New Zealand butter amounts to nearly 80 per cent. of the price at which New Zealand can land butter in this country? What is the purpose of these levies?

Mr. Bishop: The variable levy is a market-regulating instrument which allows New Zealand and Community butter to sell side by side. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that the levies which we have to pay, and which are an apparent disadvantage of the Common Market as he sees it, justify the stand that my right hon. Friend is making on the green pound.

Marketing Boards

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in discussions with the Commission of the EEC


concerning the retention of existing United Kingdom marketing boards.

Mr. Corrie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in discussions with the Commission of the EEC concerning the retention of existing United Kingdom marketing boards.

Mr. John Silkin: As I told the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) yesterday, we continue to be in close touch with the EEC about the future of the marketing boards, including the Milk Marketing Boards. The boards' activities have naturally to be consistent with the Treaty of Rome and EEC regulations, and the purpose of our discussions with the Commission is to find legal solutions which fully meet the Government's aim, which is to maintain those functions of the boards which are essential to the orderly marketing of the products concerned.

Mr. Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to establish himself as the champion of the housewife, but he has totally failed to understand or appreciate the importance of the producer. Will he give a firm assurance that he will ensure the continuance of the marketing boards, particularly the Milk Marketing Board, and will he do his utmost to persuade his European partners to establish similar organisations within the EEC?

Mr. Silkin: When I assumed office, I was well aware that I was Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Fisheries, and Minister for Food. Translating that into practical terms, it means looking after the interests of all three and not just of one section. I agree with the hon. Member about the value of the marketing boards—indeed, I have gone even further. I will send him a copy of the speech I made on 8th December, in which I said that, far from the marketing boards in England being discontinued, such boards would be of great use to the whole of Europe.

Mr. Corrie: What positive steps is the Minister taking to ensure that his European counterparts are fully aware of the way in which our marketing boards have worked within the marketing system and have helped production of the commodities concerned in this country? Does

he agree that any changes that take place should be in the European system rather than in our system?

Mr. Silkin: My officials and I have had considerable discussions in this particular realm. We have discussed the matter with the former Commissioner, Mr. Lardinois, the present Commissioner, Mr. Gundelach, and our European partners. They are in no doubt about what is involved, and I do not go back on anything that I said a moment ago. The boards have proved very valuable to this country, and they should be copied in Europe.

Mr. Welsh: In order to retain these successful boards, the Minister should encourage Continental farmers to adopt a similar system. Is it possible to extend the specialist work of the boards within the United Kingdom, for example in the Scottish seed potato industry?

Mr. Silkin: As regards encouraging our partners in Europe, certainly I will do my utmost. I believe that over the years—and it is many years now—the marketing boards have proved their effectiveness, and this is something that I intend to try to fight for as long as I can

Mr. Torney: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the unqualified success of the British Milk Marketing Board ever since its inception? It has been able to put some order into a situation which previously was chaotic. Rather than try to force us to dismantle these excellent boards, the EEC should adopt something similar. We might then see a lessening of the absolute mess that the EEC has made of the milk situation in member States, particularly in France.

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend is reinforcing the point with which every hon. Member in the House agrees. The marketing boards have a long and proud history in this country. I will do my best to maintain them—maybe not in exactly the form that they take now, but certainly with the same essentials and principles.

Beef Sector

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the beef sector of the agriculture industry.

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the beef sector of the agriculture industry.

Mr. Bishop: Beef market prices have weakened seasonally since Christmas, both in this country and throughout most of the Community, but have now levelled out. Both the market and producers' returns are effectively underpinned in the United Kingdom by the combination of premiums and intervention, but the market price has remained well above the support levels. Calf and store cattle prices have been generally strong since the autumn. Likely levels of home production of beef suggest firm markets during 1977.

Mr. Crouch: Is the Minister aware that very serious concern is felt by our beef producers, who are getting an inadequate return for attempting to increase beef production, particularly at a time of high inflation? Will he give them further encouragement?

Mr. Bishop: I have taken note of that. But there are very good reasons for having confidence in beef prospects. Support levels, which are good at the moment, are due to rise at the beginning of the marketing year in a few weeks' time.

Mr. Spence: In order to reinforce confidence in the industry, will the Minister confirm that it is the policy of his Department to retain the premium scheme for beef? If not, why not? Also, will he say what the target price for beef will be for March?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Member will know the view of the Government in relation to the beef premium scheme. That was one of the achievements of the Common Market renegotiations. We shall have to consider what is an adequate period for extension of the scheme, and at the moment we are keeping the matter under review.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that Botswana is getting a fair deal with her exports of beef to the Common Market, since these are very important to that country? There have been criticisms of the bureaucratic system under which imports from Botswana are allowed.

Mr. Bishop: My hon. Friend, with his concern for Botswana, will know all the steps that my right hon. Friend has taken. We shall bear in mind the special position of that country.

Mr. Body: Has the Minister heard the view of meat importers and the Australian Meat Board that none of the cheap Australian beef will come to this country, once the ban is lifted in April, because of the very high import levies which will continue thereafter?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Member will be aware of the recent liberalisation of the Common Market in relation to beef to which my right hon. Friend referred a few moments ago.

Pig Subsidy

Mr. Newton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the early results of the temporary subsidy for pigs.

Mr. John Silkin: Pig prices in the two weeks after the subsidy was introduced were on average much the same as they had been in the last two weeks of January. The addition of the subsidy means that producers' returns were substantially increased. This should encourage producers to keep up their pig numbers whilst discussions on the question of reducing the monetary compensatory amounts in this sector continue.

Mr. Newton: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell some of his hon. Friends that it cannot be in the interests of consumers, any more than of producers, to do the damage that was done to the pigmeat sector, or to leave it in the state of insecurity in which it lives by means of a temporary expedient? Will he accept that it is therefore in everybody's interests to have a partial revaluation of the green pound if that will help to achieve the recalculation of mcas and to restore confidence to British farming?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman's question is undoubtedly meant to be helpful, but it is not as helpful as it might be in terms of the negotiations. On the general proposition he advances, it is right to say that our producers have faced a totally unfair and inequitable method of calculating mcas which has injured them. I take that to be common


ground. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the subsidy which came into effect a fortnight ago was a temporary expedient. The real question involves the recalculation of pigmeat mcas. The mere devaluation of the green pound within the limits envisaged by the hon. Gentleman would make no difference because it would put up the price of feeding stuffs by the same amount. I refuse to make that a bargaining counter in getting what I believe to be the fair and just basis on which pigmeat mca calculations should be made.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend discuss this matter with the pig farmers, who largely assert that the effect of the temporary subsidy has already been wiped out by falling market prices? Will he also say when he hopes to move from this temporary policy, however welcome, to a more permanent régime?

Mr. Silken: I am ready and always have been—indeed, I put forward proposals as long ago as last September—to seek a fair and just method of calculating pigmeat mcas. That remains the case. The moment we can do that we can look at the need for temporary expedients of one kind or another.
My hon. Friend is wrong to believe that the subsidy does not go to the producers. The basis of the average price of pigs in the week before the subsidy was introduced was 68·09p per kilogram, and last week the figure was 68·05p per kilogram. This means that the average returns are up by virtually the full amount of the subsidy—that is, 5·5p per kilogram.

Mr. Peyton: Now that the effect of the short-term expedient has been totally exhausted, what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do to give pig producers some confidence in the future of their industry?

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman must have been so busy thinking up that supplementary question that he did not listen to my answer. I tried to point out that virtually the whole of that subsidy has gone to the pig producers. That is evident in the price, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot argue with that.
When the right hon. Gentleman says "This is only a temporary expedient, so let

us get something going", I must remind him that the only movement in pigmeat mcas across the Channel took place as a result of my intervention and resulted in a change of 8 per cent. last November. I hope and believe that we shall get a more sensible and just method of calculating mcas, and I believe that the Commissioners and our partners in Europe are ready for it.

Sugar Refining Industry

Mr. Loyden: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the British sugar refining industry.

Mr. John Silkin: Discussions on the reorganisation of the cane sugar refineries still continue, but I cannot at this stage add anything to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 20th January.

Mr. Loyden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the workers in the industry have shown some confidence in the way in which the Minister has tackled the sugar refining question? Is he also aware of the continuing concern of the workers in the future of their industry? Does he not appreciate that any question of rationalisation that may lead to the removal of thousands of jobs from Merseyside will be resisted not only by workers in Tate and Lyle but by the whole Merseyside trade union movement?

Mr. Silkin: I pay tribute to the splendid work carried out by my hon. Friend in seeking to protect the interests of his constituents.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that all hon. Members are as zealous in seeking the good of their constituents. I assure my hon. Friend that the subject of employment is firmly in the Government's mind in this context.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Employment with regard to the level of unemployment in Scotland.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): Yes.

Mr. Rifkind: Is the Prime Minister aware that the appalling lack of coordination in employment matters led to a heavy Government defeat this morning in the Scottish Grand Committee? Is he not also aware that it was due to the unpaired absence of 13 Labour Members? Does he not feel that the trend he began 10 days ago of allowing the Government to be defeated because of his own unpaired absence is being followed a little too closely by many of his hon. Friends and could lead to the unemployment of the Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: I am glad to say that the co-ordination between the various Departments—and the Question relates to co-ordination—has resulted in assistance being given in a number of important respects. For example, it has led to Section 7 loans and grants totalling £41 million and to some 35,000 jobs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—anticipating a total expenditure of £383 million. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was getting to his feet to congratulate the Government on their part in establishing the Cummins Engine Company diesel works near Glasgow, in which the Scottish Development Corporation has set aside a considerable sum of money for the provision of labour. That project is going through because of the good quality of Scottish labour. All that seems to me to be much more important than making the kind of point the hon. Gentleman sought to make in his supplementary question.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister say when the two Secretaries of State will be announcing new measures to give employment incentives to Scottish development areas, as foreshadowed in statements he is always making about sudden withdrawals of regional employment premium?

The Prime Minister: Yes, discussions are taking place on that subject and I promise that action will follow as quickly as possible. A number of projects are now under consideration. The accelerated projects scheme has been replaced by the new selective scheme which involves a total of £100 million.

Mr. William Ross: Will my right hon. Friend not worry too much about the farce that we experienced this morning in

the Scottish Grand Committee? We welcome the fact that 10 English Members showed a belated interest in Scottish education and voted on something that did not matter at all. Will he take seriously the subject of co-ordination and widen it to include the Department of Industry and the Treasury? Furthermore, will he invite them to make an assessment and report to him on the consequences of the withdrawal of REP, and will he prepare a further programme of action?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I shall consider that suggestion. We have made a number of inquiries about REP, on which my right hon. Friend and others have made representations. However, it appears that business men much prefer the other incentives that are taking its place. Such research as we have done confirms that, but I shall continue to examine these matters and to obtain the best co-ordination possible.

Mr. Donald Stewart: As Scottish unemployment is at a level that is unprecedented since before the war and in view of what was said by the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that a Secretary of State who sees unemployment rising to 100,000 should resign, will the Prime Minister undertake to inform the present holder of that office that if he gets unemployment down to 100,000 he may remain in office?

The Prime Minister: Scottish unemployment is a factor in United Kingdom unemployment as a whole and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell his constituents that the economy of Scotland cannot be separated from that of England and Wales. The same factors affect both countries, including the increased prices of commodities and imported materials that have sent up costs so much. The unemployment situation in Scotland must be improved, and the Government's policy for industrial strategy is the best way of achieving that, coupled with overcoming inflation.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Since the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) objects to English Members voting in a Scottish Committee, can the Prime Minister say whether the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock will abstain from the


English education vote tonight or, indeed, from the United Kingdom vote?

The Prime Minister: I should not dream of answering on behalf of my right hon. Friend. Having heard him bite off one Tory after another during his years in the House, I can tell the right hon. Lady that he is more than a match for any 10 of her colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (EX-SERVICE MEN)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment on the arrangements being made for rehousing Service men on their retirement or discharge from the Services.

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr. Lloyd: Since the House may safely assume that the Prime Minister is familiar with the heavy concentration of Service families in Hampshire, may I ask whether he is also aware that in one local authority area alone there are 78 Service families in irregular occupation of military accommodation? If the problem is to be handled on a more realistic basis, does it not require a more realistic approach to the rate support grant for the county?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of this question, particularly in places such as Gosport, Portsmouth and Rushmoor, Aldershot. I am told that there was a meeting a short while ago between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence on the one hand and the local authorities on the other to deal with the problem. The situation is not satisfactory, although Circular 54/75 was intended to deal with it. I hope that local authorities everywhere will do what they can, within their overall responsibilities, to assist the resettlement of ex-Service men when they have finished their term in the forces.

Mr. Newens: Does not the Prime Minister regard it as an appalling insult to a Service man who has saitsfactorily completed his term of service that he should be taken out of a Defence Departmentowned house by a bailiff acting on a court order? Does the Prime Minister realise that this is exactly what is due to happen to one of my constituents, Mr. Wood of North Weald, next Monday morning be cause the local Epping Forest Council is

unable to offer anything better for his family than bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Is it not time to stop this state of affairs, not only for my constiuent but for all such people?

The Prime Minister: Now that my hon. Friend has brought the matter into the daylight, I am sure that it will be looked into, if that has not been done before. I shall not undertake any action myself but I shall draw the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Churchill: Does the Prime Minister realise that only this week the Secretary of State for Defence admitted in a Written Answer that more than 125,000 jobs have been deliberately destroyed in the Services and defence industries as a result of the Socialist defence cuts? Does the Prime Minister realise that there will be further cuts involving another 218,000 jobs by 1979? Is not this the biggest job destruction programme ever undertaken by any Government, and how does the Prime Minister excuse his callous complacency?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member should not confuse whirling words with cogent argument. The Question is related to the rehousing of ex-Service men. I have dealt with that Question, I have been into it thoroughly and I shall continue to investigate it.

Mr. Pavitt: As one of the most imaginative schemes of the Government has been the promotion of co-operative housing in the ordinary sector, though it is having to be held back a bit because of public expenditure cuts, would my right hon. Friend consider as a possible solution to the housing problems of ex-Service men that the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment might pursue the formation of housing co-operatives?

The Prime Minister: I shall draw my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of the Department of the Environment and the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Nelson: Does the Prime Minister know about the serious housing difficulties that are faced by widows of Service men who have been killed, by invalided Service men and by Service men who face risks in settling in Northern Ireland but who have family connections there? Although local authorities do not have any priorities forced upon them, will the


Prime Minister give priority to these special groups to whom we all owe a particular responsibility?

The Prime Minister: I should not want to see a widow turned out of a Service house if that could be avoided. I speak from personal experience of this matter. When my father died, we were living in a Coastguard cottage and we had to leave. That was many years ago and I hope that we have moved beyond that situation now, but that is why I am taking a personal interest in the matter and I shall try to do everythting that I can to overcome it.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does the Prime Minister remember from his days as a divisional officer the haunting problem that housing posed for his sailors? Does he realise that with the turbulence that there now is in Service life, many ex-Service people have either no home towns to which they can return or insufficient residence qualifications in dockyard and garrison towns? The present Department of the Environment circular is not proving very effective. Therefore, can the Prime Minister help and have a personal word with the Secretary of State for the Environment to see whether something more effective can be persuaded upon local authorities all over the country?

The Prime Minister: Much information and advice is given to Service men at all stages in their careers. Not all of them take advantage of it, but many do. The Secretary of State for the Environment is prepared to consider an application from any local authority that can make a case for allowing priorities for areas of housing stress or pockets of housing stress. That is the best way to proceed. I am, however, willing to look at any other matter and to ask the Secretary of State to investigate it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUC

Mr Forman: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) on 3rd February.

Mr. Forman: When the Prime Minister last met the TUC, did he make clear

that he is now prepared to shelve the damaging and controversial proposals in the Bullock majority recommendation for putting trade unionists on the board? Is not one of the reasons why the prospects for further pay restraint beyond the end of July are now so dim—and perhaps fatally damaging that the Government's policies on direct taxation have put a crushing burden on ordinary working people?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I have previously said in the House about the Bullock Report. We are entering a period of intense negotiation in order to try, if possible, to see how we can secure a lasting settlement, but that will take a great deal of negotiation to achieve. I do not know whether we can achieve it, but it is worth trying because there is no doubt that the idea of industrial democracy and participation has come to stay. Therefore, we ought to try to find a solution and introduce legislation to achieve it.
As to direct taxation, everybody is suffering from that, always has done and always will, but no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have more to say about that when he introduces his Budget.

Mr. John Mendelson: Has the Prime Minister seen that, in the statement which arose from the meeting of the economic committee of the General Council of the TUC, great stress was laid on the measures that Government should take to reduce unemployment? Is he aware that the President of the United States is implementing the programme of the American trade union movement with whose support he was elected and is spending $25,000 million to create 1,100,000 new jobs? In his forthcoming discussions with the President, will my right hon. Friend agree that Great Britain should have a similar policy and should abandon the policy of not spending more public money to save jobs but rather of allowing unemployment to remain at its present high level?

The Prime Minister: Such a policy will be appropriate when the Government secure, as they intend, a level of inflation and a balance of payments surplus that are comparable to those of the United States. Even apart from that,


the two cases are not equal and the same remedies are not applicable.

Mrs. Thatcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why it is, in his view, that when we had the pay dispute with the seamen their claim was able to be resolved generously and satisfactorily within the pay policy but that the Government seem totally unable to respond in the same way to the police claim? Is he aware that this is giving rise to very considerable concern and that we all hope that the Government will be able to respond and solve the dispute generously within the pay policy?

The Prime Minister: If it is possible to settle the policemen's pay claim within the pay policy, the right hon. Lady need have no doubt that it will be done. The Home Secretary is the responsible Minister, but I try to keep myself apprised of such matters in case I get asked the sort of question that the right hon. Lady asked. From my cursory examination, it appears that the cases of the policemen and the seamen are not on all fours and are not altogether comparable. The Home Secretary is doing what he can to get a settlement. I have always taken the view that the police service should get the best possible conditions, but we cannot break a Pay Code which has been generally accepted, even for the most deserving cases. If we can find something within the limits of the Pay Code, I agree that we should do so.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one in my party has ever sought a breach of the Government's Pay Code and that I said this when we had the National Union of Seamen's dispute? As the right hon. Gentleman does not hesitate to take over responsibilities from other Departments, will he intervene personally in this case? After all, he has a special knowledge of the police claim and it is one that is very important indeed for the future safety of the citizens of this country.

The Prime Minister: I have listened to the right hon. Lady's proposals, but she knows that I have not taken over responsibilities from other Ministers—though she insists on continuing to say that I have. It would not be right for me to do so in this case, but, of course, these matters will receive overall Government consideration.

Mr. Speaker: Business Question, Mrs. Thatcher.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was about to address you on the question of a Standing Order No. 9 application in relation to the Agee and Hosenball case. I recognise that you have said that this should be done at the end of business questions, but rise to warn my hon. Friends that they had better come back from the Tea Room at the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker: That was more a matter of strategy than a point of order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Leader of the House kindly state the business for next week.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21ST FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill. Remaining stages of the Covent Garden Market (Financial Provisions) Bill.
TUESDAY 22ND FEBRUARY—Consideration of a timetable motion—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We all want to know what else is in store.

Mr. Foot: As I was saying, on Tuesday, consideration of a timetable motion on the Scotland and Wales Bill.
Motion on EEC Documents on textiles. In addition to those already announced, Document S/205/77 is also relevant.
WEDNESDAY 23RD FEBRUARY—Supply [8th Allotted Day]: Until about 7 o'clock, a debate on a Liberal Party motion on the reform of government.
Afterwards, a debate on security in Northern Ireland, which will arise on an Ulster Unionists' motion.
Motions on Northern Ireland Orders on local elections and criminal damage.
THURSDAY 24TH FEBRUARY—Proceedings in Committee on the Scotland and Wales Bill.
FRIDAY 25TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.


MONDAY 28TH FEBRUARY—Supply [9th Allotted Day]: subject for debate to be announced.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the most discreditable and disgraceful use of a guillotine that we have yet seen in this House? Is he aware that the Bill raises constitutional matters which have not been discussed in this House for 50 years? Is he aware that the Bill is really three Bills—a Scotland Bill, a Wales Bill and a referendum Bill—and that he is attempting in one guillotine to suppress discussion of matters of supreme importance to everyone in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that he will be throughly debasing the standard and standing of Parliament when he goes to the people of Scotland and Wales to consult them in a referendum, having prevented their elected representatives from discussing many questions in the Bill? Will he not therefore reconsider this measure, bearing in mind that only one-third of the discussion so far has been taken up by Members of the Opposition, so he is therefore gagging his hon. Friends as well as hon. Members in other parts of the House?
As we are coming up to Budget time, has the right hon. Gentleman any news of the date of the Budget?

Mr. Foot: It is the present intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to open his Budget on Tuesday 29th March. I detected a note of criticism in some of the right hon. Lady's remarks, but I suggest that, in accordance with our normal procedures, the best time to discuss those criticisms is on Tuesday next week.

Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in some few years in the House, I have never known so much wasted time as we have had from the Tory Party on the devolution Bill?

Mr. Foot: As I said to the right hon. Lady, these are matters which we can discuss next Tuesday.

Sir J. Eden: Will the debate on Tuesday last a full day until 10 o'clock, or does the right hon. Gentleman intend to curtail that as well?

Mr. Foot: The debate will last for three hours, as it has on such occasions in the past.

Mr. Heffer: In the event of the Government not getting their guillotine

motion, will they and my right hon. Friend consider that the best way of dealing with that situation would be for the House to decide to go away for about three weeks and for us to have the referendum and allow the people to take a decision on this matter? I accept the Government's view that it would not be a final decision, but if the people show that they want devolution, the passage of the Bill would obviously be much smoother than it has been up to now.

Mr. Foot: I do not think that the right course for the House is to discuss these hypothetical possibilities now. The right thing to do is to have the discussions on Tuesday. We have consulted the people of Scotland and Wales on the introduction of this measure. I hope that my hon. Friends will take that into account.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Leader of the House consider amending the Standing Orders to allow a longer debate than three hours on the guillotine motion? The situation has one unusual feature. After the Bill came into Committee a new and important constitutional point was raised on the referendum. We have not yet seen the Government proposals for that. We must have full time to discuss the effect of the referendum and this constitutional change.

Mr. Foot: There will be full time under the Government's proposals to discuss all these matters. In the debates that we have had over the past two days the Government's proposals and the main proposal of principle about the referendum were accepted by a large majority.

Mr. Whitehead: Leaving aside the synthetic indignation of those hon. Members who brought in a timetable motion on the European Communities Bill, will my right hon. Friend turn his mind to the decision to deport Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball? In view of Mr. Speaker's ruling yesterday, will he turn his mind to giving Government time for this matter to be debated, bearing in mind that we came here on a three-line Whip to debate the Dutschke case?

Mr. Foot: I cannot give any time to debate that subject next week. My hon. Friends must seek their own methods to raise the issue.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Leaving aside the announcement about the guillotine,


has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the report that today the Irish Republic has announced its own unilateral 50-mile fishing limit? Does he accept that this has an impact on British fishing limits? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this and see that a statement is made, because the situation is causing considerable outrage among our fishermen who are not satisfied with what the Government are doing for them?

Mr. Foot: I shall see whether a statement can be made, but the House showed yesterday that it has great confidence in the Minister of Agriculture in dealing with these matters.

Mr. Abse: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the question of the guillotine? I put it to him in two sentences—his. My right hon. Friend said:
No one can say that he has the full-hearted consent of Parliament and at the same time introduce a guillotine. No one can say that unless he emasculates the English language, just as the Government propose to emasculate the British Constitution."—[Official Report, 2nd May, 1972; Vol. 836, c. 235.]
Those were the words of the present Leader of the House when the European Communities Bill was before the House. Has he no comment to make to explain to the House this appalling volte face?

Mr. Foot: I shall be happy to debate with my hon. Friend and any other right hon. and hon. Members of the House about what I said at the time of the Common Market discussions and these other matters. But the appropriate time to do that is next Tuesday.

Mr. Reid: Will the Leader of the House accept the congratulations of the Scottish National Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Will he accept our congratulations on getting on with the guillotine? In preparation for Tuesday's vote will be bring to the attention of his colleagues on the Labour Benches the full-page advertisement which appeared in the Scots Press before the October 1974 election? The advertisement read:
Powerhouse Scotland! Labour is pledged to an Assembly elected exclusively by Scottish voters An Assembly with the power to take action and plan for the future. Plus, of course, the money to carry out the ideas."—
and finally, in the terms of the guillotine, it went on:

The next Labour Government promises a Scottish Assembly, and we only make promises that we can keep.

Mr. Speaker: I made a mistake in allowing the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) to give a quotation. I thought it fair to make the same mistake a second time. I hope that hon. Members will realise that this subject is to be debated next week and that we are now having business questions.

Mr. Palmer: On another topic, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate fairly soon on the last report of the Select Committee on Members' interests because the failure to implement that report means that soon there will be no effective register of Members' interests?

Mr. Foot: The register is still being maintained. I shall consider the representation that was made to the House by the Select Committee concerned. However, I have no proposals for a debate in the immediate future. We must deal with the matter at some stage and have a debate in the House.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Is the Leader of the House aware that many hon. Members in all parts of the House, particularly after his announcement, now feel that he should have included in this week's business a debate on Early-Day Motion No. 168 on the ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means, which stands in the name of myself and a wide range of hon. Members from a wide political spectrum? Does the Leader of the House accept that this is a technical criticism of the Chair and that it must be debated as soon as possible? Has he any idea when it will be debated? Will he accept the first six names on this motion as evidence that the House should alter its rules to give more time to debate the guillotine motion itself?

[That, in the opinion of this House, the ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means on Thursday 10th February 1977, in selecting for debate in Committee of the whole House on the Scotland and Wales Bill the Procedure Motion, new Clause 40 and Amendment 679, all in the name of the Leader of the House, ought not to be cited or drawn into precedent on any future occasion.]

Mr. Foot: I do not believe that this motion affects the motion on the guillotine. But I say to the right hon. Gentle-


man that I entirely agree that the matter that he raised in his motion should and must be discussed in the House. It should be done at a fairly early date. I cannot say that we shall debate it next week but I promise the House that we shall debate it at an early stage. I recognise the importance of the issue, but it is separate from the guillotine question.

Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend not worry too much about the differing points of view about whose heads will roll when the guillotine falls? Will he accept that those who want to criticise part of the Bill and to vote for amendments accept that the Bill has a large majority in the House and that its future should be decided by votes as well as by voices?

Mr. Foot: It will be decided by votes.

Mr. John Page: In view of the recent tragic events in Uganda, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made to the House about what steps the Government are proposing to take to safeguard the lives of members of the British Christian community in Uganda? Will he inform the House whether an invitation is being given to President Amin to attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in June?

Mr. Foot: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I am not sure that the matter can best be dealt with by a statement. I shall consider the matter and have discussions with other Ministers about it.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will my right hon. Friend give a positive assurance that President Amin will not be invited to this country or be allowed into the country, whether for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, the Silver Jubilee or anything else? May we have a debate on the subject?

Mr. Foot: I cannot give an answer in the terms requested. It would be unwise to do so. The question whether there is a to be a visit to this country for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference is not a matter for the Government alone. However, I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern.

Mr. Pym: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is entirely within the Government's discretion whether they

give a whole day for the timetable motion—and, of course, there are precedents for that—and, in all the circumstances, would it not be appropriate to give a whole day on Tuesday if he must bring forward this motion, with which, as he knows, I passionately disagree? Second, will he put on the Order Paper as part of the motion all the details of the timetable that he has in mind, so that in the course of the debate hon. Members can see precisely what the House will be faced with, clause by clause? This is very necessary if the House is to come to a fair and reasonable decision on what is a parliamentary monstrosity of a proposal.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman is returning to some of the questions for debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He refers to what we are proposing being a monstrosity. That is a question for debate. He does not expect me to agree with any such absurd proposition—if I may return in the same tone that he employed. As for extending the period of debate, I think that what we are proposing is in full accordance with what has happened previously and is the best way in which we can proceed. We can perfectly well determine the matter in the three-hour debate.
A motion will be going down on the Order Paper today. I believe that it will be quite full enough for the House to be able to judge what is the time that is being made available, and I believe that the House will be in possession of the facts that will enable it to come to a proper judgment.

Mr. Kinnock: Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that there have been, let us say, marginal departures from the well-established traditions in the way in which the Government have shown great innovation and originality of thought in changing their general disposition on the Bill? Taking confidence from that, will he not reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and not dismiss the possibility of an immediate or early referendum as a hypothetical possibility, because at present there is no possibility more hypothetical than that of my right hon. Friend getting his guillotine motion next Tuesday night?

Mr. Foot: All these are questions for debate. I do not believe that the pro-


posal which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), and which has been supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), is a proper proposal that solves the situation. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty has been opposed to the proposal for devolution to Wales, but in every chamber in Wales in which he has debated it, he has lost. He may lose again.

Mr. Tom King: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, in the convolutions over the guillotine motion, it has been necessary to change the business for Monday? Is he aware that it is quite intolerable, when the business has already been announced, suddenly to have a major measure, the Coal Industry Bill, shoved in without any warning on the first day of next week? Would it not be more sensible to restore the originally announced business for Monday and to have a whole day for the debate on the guillotine on Tuesday, and to let the Coal Industry Bill come forward at the normal time?

Mr. Foot: I am sorry if this has caused inconvenience to the hon. Gentleman and others in the House. There was a question whether we should make a rearrangement again and have the Supply Day then, but that would have caused inconvenience for some others. I do not believe that it is impossible for the House to proceed to proper debate on the Coal Industry Bill on Monday.

Mr. Henderson: In the event of the guillotine motion being defeated, will the Government treat the matter as an issue of confidence and resign, so that Scottish people can pass judgment on them?

Mr. Foot: None of these outrageous hypotheses should be discussed today.

Mr. Moonman: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he is protecting the interests of Bank Benchers—the fundamental rôle that he performs in the House—when he introduces this guillotine motion next week with only the relatively short time allocated taken up? Would he not give further consideration to some of the options that will follow should this motion fail next week?

Mr. Foot: What we propose is perfectly proper. We are giving an opportunity for the House to decide upon our proposals as to how we should proceed

with the Bill. Many of my hon. Friends who have been present in the House over the past few weeks will think that we are protecting the rights of many Back Benchers in our proposal, as well as protecting the rights of others who want to oppose.

Sir David Renton: With regard to the time to be taken up on the timetable motion, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the quite exceptional importance of it, its tremendous implications, the conflicting views held about it on both sides of the House, and the need for adequate time to be given during the debate for considering the alternatives to this guillotine? Will he bear in mind especially the very large numbers of Members who are likely to want to catch Mr. Speaker's eye? In view of all these factors, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is fair to the House to allow only three hours for the debate? Will he please think about it again?

Mr. Foot: There have been many timetable motions that have dealt with Bills of great importance in a period of three hours. Several such timetable motions were introduced by the Conservative Party—and timetable motions that dealt with important questions. Therefore, I believe that it is perfectly possible for the House to come to a reasonable decision after a three-hour debate.

Mr. MacFarquhar: On the welcome assumption that my right hon. Friend is right and that the guillotine is passed in favour of the Government next Tuesday, will he give the House an assurance that he will immediately thereafter introduce a Bill for the holding of direct elections to the European Parliament? Will he also assure the House that he will, in due course, be prepared to introduce a guillotine for that Bill? Will he also refute rumours that he will be postponing that Bill until the next Session?

Mr. Foot: I have nothing to add to what has been said on that subject by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Just as I am not discussing other possibilities, I am not discussing any part of that possibility either.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made next week so that the House


and the general public may know that the iniquitous Water Charges Equalisation Bill will not now become law this year?

Mr. Foot: It is most unfortunate that it is not becoming law this year, because obviously it is a Bill designed to be fair to the whole country. All that the hon. Gentleman has done is to reveal his prejudice.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a three-hour period there will not be time for more than eight or nine Back Bench speeches, at best, and that only if all of them keep to about 10 or 12 minutes each? What is his reason, other than precedents—bad precedents, committed by Conservative Governments as well—for denying a second half of a day for this terribly important motion?

Mr. Foot: There are plenty of precedents for what I am proposing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am just underlining one part of my hon. Friend's question. Another of the reasons why we wish to proceed to the other business is that we have very important business to transact. There is a motion on EEC documents on textiles. One of the problems that the House faces is that we have to provide further time to discuss the measures, proposals and regulations that come from Brussels. We wish to have time for discussing those, too. They are matters on which I have been pressed from many parts of the House to provide time.

Mr. Rifkind: Why is the right hon. Gentleman stubbornly refusing demands from both sides of the House for extending the debate on the guillotine beyond three hours? Does he not realise that he is guaranteeing that he will get no support for his motion from the Conservative Benches?

Mr. Foot: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, like others, will have plenty of time during the debate to make up his mind on the merits of the matter.

Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a widespread welcome throughout Scotland for the proposal to have a timetable and that if we fail to get the Bill through the House and submit it to the people of Scotland, there will be only one group

of people who will be pleased, despite their support for the timetable motion, if the Bill goes into the sands, and that is the Scottish National Party? The Members of this House must realise that on the two issues of the second question in the referendum and the timetable motion getting through depends the survival of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Foot: We know how persistently my hon. Friend has pressed this matter, and that he has on the Notice Paper a very important amendment on the subject. That will be one of the first matters to be discussed when we return to the business on Thursday.

Mr. Peter Walker: In view of the findings this morning about the hybrid nature of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, do the Government intend to make a statement this week or next week?

Mr. Foot: All hon. Members should carefully study the statement that has been made before anybody passes judgment on it.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: With reference to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who have no particular axe to grind for Mr. Agee or Mr. Hosenball are none the less gravely concerned about the matter, because we think that it reflects discredit upon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, for whom we have great respect, and thus reflects discredit upon the Government as a whole? In view of this, as the Government are discredited in the matter, does not my right hon. Friend consider that it is a matter for Government time? Will he find Government time to discuss it?

Mr. Foot: As I have said before, I cannot provide time next week for discussion of the matter. I repudiate any suggestion of discredit attaching to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for what has been done.

Mr. Crouch: I am not quite sure how the right hon. Gentleman reaches his decisions these days. Does he consider that he has become a prisoner of the procedures of the House, that he has no opportunity to draw on his reserves,


usually strong reserves, of generosity with regard to extra time for debate? The right hon. Gentleman was a great debater in his time. Can he not recognise that there is strong feeling in the House that we want longer to debate his decision today?

Mr. Foot: My recollections of many such motions—and I think that most people have agreed—is that timetable motions, even on very important Bills, can be properly considered within the three-hour period. Indeed, the Standing Orders were altered not so many years ago to deal with that matter. I am always prepared to see whether our procedures should be altered at some stage to accommodate any proposals, but I do not think that there is a strong case for that in this instance.

Mr. Noble: Does my right hon. Friend recall the letter to him written by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) about the time allotted for the debate on textiles? Does he accept that now that the debate has been moved to Tuesday there will be less time than there would have been on Monday? Therefore, will he reconsider the decision to have a debate on textiles on Tuesday? Will he allot more time, as he himself said a moment ago that it is a vital industry and a vital debate?

Mr. Foot: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, but I am sure that if we were further to postpone that debate there would be criticisms of that as well. I shall be prepared to consider whether we should suspend the rule for the debate on Tuesday, so that we do not have to finish it at 10 o'clock. I think that that is a logical proposal given that we originally proposed that the debate should take place after another debate. I shall consider whether we can have extended time.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will the Leader of the House accept the thanks of the whole House for the way in which he has muddled and fumbled his way through the devolution Bill thus far, thus allowing both sides of the House to express their opposition to it? Will he think again about his guillotine motion, because it is obvious that he will not get it and that he will be muddling and fumbling once again?

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend indicate before the debate on Tuesday whether he is considering making any major concessions with regard to the Liberal proposals, such as the granting of taxation powers to the Assemblies?

Mr. Foot: On Second Reading and on a number of other occasions the Government have indicated that they are prepared to consider fresh proposals about a marginal tax arrangement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is no need to say "Oh' or anything like that. If my hon. Friends had followed closely what has been said, they would know that we have said in public on a number of occasions, and have said from this Dispatch Box, that we would be prepared to look for other arrangements. But we believe that it is very difficult to find them. There is nothing new in that proposal. As for other proposals from the Liberal Party, some of them have been fully discussed in the House and the House has passed judgment upon them.

Mr. Heath: Is the Leader of the House aware—as of course he is—that he is absolutely entitled to ask the House for a timetable motion on a constitutional measure, that he is quite right in saying that Standing Orders allow three hours to debate it, and that he is absolutely right in saying that there are many precedents for his statement? This is widely recognised throughout the House. But three questions arise over the whole matter. One is that the House should feel that it has had perhaps more time than it is entitled to for discussing the Bill. Secondly, the timetable motion itself should give full time—again, perhaps even more than the right hon. Gentleman had originally envisaged. The third and very important matter is that there should be orderly discussion of what remains of the Bill within that period. If my knowledge of the Standing Orders is correct, that is a matter for discussion after the motion is passed.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman three things. First, will he consider again whether the House should not have the opportunity to feel that it has been able fully to discuss the timetable motion, even though that may make it difficult to discuss the European issues? Obviously, I do not ask for an answer now. Secondly, will he reassure the House that there is ample time for the rest of the Bill, and,


thirdly, in particular, that it will be carried through in an orderly way, so that it will not go to the other place with Members here or there feeling that they have not dealt with at least the major issues in it?

Mr. Foot: Of course, we shall seek to ensure that the Bill is discussed in the most orderly manner and that at the end of the proceedings we do not send to the other place a whole batch of matters which have not been discussed. Certainly, in the Government's approach in the Business Committee we shall seek to ensure that that happens.
As for the time available, I believe that anyone who sees what we place on the Order Paper will agree that we are offering considerable time, just as we have done right from the beginning of the passage of the Bill.
On the first matter that the right hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members in various parts of the House have pressed, it would be absurd for me not to acknowledge that there have been demands from many quarters that we should look afresh at the question of time to debate the motion. I give no undertaking about providing a whole day, but I shall see whether there is some other arrangement that we can make. I must take into account the position of other hon. Members who are interested in other business of the House, such as those interested in textiles. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) said, we have already given an undertaking to them and other Members who are specially interested in the wideranging matter of textiles that we shall provide considerable time for that discussion. We must take all that into account. I make no promise to the House, but I shall consider the representations from many quarters on the subject.

Mr. Pym: I do not think that the argument about providing time for textiles on Tuesday is in proportion or perspective compared with the importance of the timetable motion. I very much support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, and I want to add to it. In reply to my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House referred to the Business Committee, which is covered by the Standing Orders. What

I was seeking to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman in an earlier question was an undertaking that all the details of the timetable motion for the rest of the Committee stage of the Scotland and Wales Bill should be on the Order Paper. There are precedents for that. In the absence of those details in the motion on the Order Paper, I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can give a satisfactory answer to my right hon. Friend, who pressed him for an orderly debate. I think that both those matters are very important—a whole day's debate on the motion and full details on the Order Paper of what is proposed.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman has more experience than I have of these questions, but I believe that the way in which they are dealt with to make them orderly depends on what happens in the Business Committee. It is best to organise these debates in the Business Committee. Attempting to settle such matters in advance is not the best way. When hon. Members see the motion on the Order Paper I think that they will see that we are seeking to deal with the matter intelligently. I know that hon. Members always want more time for everything.
As I promised, I shall consider the matter in the light of the representations, but it is not easy to carry out pledges to all the different sections of the House. Naturally concerned as they are with ensuring that we have a proper debate on the subject, hon. Members must understand that we must also take into account the great demands for debates on textiles and matters of what is to become the law of the land as a result of decisions taken in Brussels.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that there are two very important debates to take place later today and that a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. There is also other business. It is always difficult for me to decide a timetable of my own on this matter, but I propose to take two more questions from either side of the House.

Mr. Newens: I wish to revert to the issue raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and Putney (Mr. Jenkins). Is my right


hon. Friend aware of the deep sense of outrage produced by the decision to deport Messrs Agee and Hosenball? If no other means is found to debate the matter, does not my right hon. Friend regard it as being of sufficient importance —particularly bearing in mind his own background and interest in the case of Rudi Dutschke—for it to be given Government time?

Mr. Foot: I agree that the issue is involved and that any such cases are important, but I cannot say anything more now. I cannot offer any Government time for discussing the matter.

Mr. Nott: May I revert to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)? The House is not yet ready to take the Coal Industry Bill. It could not go into Committee anyway because the Nuclear Industry (Finance) Bill has not gone into Committee yet. It is therefore inconvenient to the House to have the Coal Industry Bill's Second Reading on Monday. For 10 days the House has been expecting a debate on textiles to take place on Monday, and that would suit the House well. Why not have the textiles debate on Monday, as originally proposed—we are ready for it—have a full day on the guillotine motion on Tuesday, and take the Coal Industry Bill, which the House is not yet ready to discuss and deal with, the week after?

Mr. Foot: The only fallacy in that argument is that we would lose a day, or part of a day, for discussion of the Coal Industry Bill. The hon. Gentleman must take that into account as well.

Mr. Spriggs: Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to his reply concerning Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball? As it has been stated in the House that both are a danger to the State, is it not wrong to free them to make available the information for which the Home Secretary is deporting them? Will my right hon. Friend not consider the question of putting the two men on trial, with the object of enabling them to defend themselves against a charge which none of us knows anything about?

Mr. Foot: I cannot enter at this stage into discussion of the merits and demerits of that matter, which was dealt with by

my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary yesterday.

Mr. Raison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposal for a guillotine motion has a new factor compared with earlier precedents—the arrival on the scene of no fewer than five minority parties? By the time they have had their legitimate say, both Front Benches have had their say, and Privy Counsellors have had their say, the chances of a Conservative Back Bencher being called are virtually nil. The right hon. Gentleman might welcome that, but it is a bad thing for Parliament.

Mr. Foot: It is a tempting offer to have a debate in which no Conservative Back Bencher will speak, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take what he has said into account, not in that tempting manner but in the other sense.

Mr. Moonman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your advice and a comment from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins)? Did not my right hon. Friend indicate that, in attempting to get the guillotine for the Scotland and Wales Bill, he was having talks with the Liberals about certain concessions? Could we have a refutation of that? Does it not raise—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to pursue business questions. I have no doubt that he can get together with the Leader of the House, but we had finished with business questions.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (HYBRIDITY)

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) raised with the Leader of the House the question of the hybridity of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. Am I right in thinking that this is a matter about which you, as Speaker, should have something to say? Will you, at some stage, be making a statement, particularly on the rights of present shareholders or those who may become shareholders who may wish to protest, so that they may know their rights and also the timetable for their rights?

Mr. Speaker: The Bill is at present before another place, and it will not be my concern until the other place has finished with it.

MR. AGEE AND MR. HOSENBALL (DEPORTATION)

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the proposed deportations of Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball".
I made a similar submission yesterday, when you, Mr. Speaker, refused it. I raise the issue again now because of the new development that the Government have now been pressed for a debate next week in Government time and have refused it. If that situation remains unchanged, both these men will be deported before the beginning of March, which is the week after next, and there will be no opportunity for the House to discuss the matter.
The upshot of that will be that executive action has been used in relation to deportations in a way which is incapable of being checked by any approach to the courts or by any other kind of judicial review, and when an assurance was given by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), the Conservative Home Secretary, in 1971 that this was specifically a matter to be dealt with by the House of Commons. Therefore, there will be an erosion of the control of the Executive by the House of Commons if we do not decide to discuss it. It is wrong that this kind of unfettered Executive power should be discussable in the House only by grace and favour of the Executive in granting time to discuss it and when it is a matter for this House, and this House alone.
Yesterday, I thought that this was so clearly an issue for a Standing Order No. 9 debate that perhaps I did not express the argument as strongly as I should have done. I have now looked into the precedents. In the period since you became Speaker, there have been 39 applications under Standing Order No. 9 from right hon. and hon. Members oppo-

site, and 22 from this side of the House. Only four applications have been accepted by you, and all four were from the Opposition Benches. One of them was from a spokesman of the Opposition Front Bench who had an opportunity in Supply time; of the other three, one was the Tameside issue, which was before the courts and was being discussed there, the second was a trade union issue with racial overtones, which was being discussed at that stage and is still being discussed because the dispute has not yet been resolved, and therefore there was no question of urgency, and the third—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman a lot of rope, but he is not going to criticise me for the choice of Standing Order No. 9 debates when I have used my judgment to the best of my ability in fulfilling the trust that the House has put in me.

Mr. Lyon: I have so far not said anything that was a question of opinion. What I have said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not entering into debate with the hon. Gentleman, but he said that I had granted a Standing Order No. 9 debate in which there was no urgency.

Mr. Lyon: What I was seeking to do, Mr. Speaker, was to put the matter into context. The Standing Order No. 9 provision allows a discussion by the House of a matter which is of such urgency that it cannot be approached in any other way before some kind of irreversible decision is made. I was seeking to show that in the four cases which have been granted that situation, in my view, did not obtain. I am saying that it does obtain in this case. Indeed, in this case it is paramount because what will happen is that the decision will be carried out before it can be raised in any other way, since the Government have already decided that next week there will be no Government time available to discuss it, and Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball will be deported thereafter. Therefore, urgency, which is the keynote of a Standing Order No. 9 application, is the very essence of this case.
I return to the case itself. The argument, which I put very strongly, is that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, who, as Home Secretary, was


responsible for the Immigration Act which took away the rights of Parliament in these cases, told the House in 1971, when the Bill was before it, that these decisions are not judicial, legal decisions, adding:
They are executive, political decisions, subject to the House of Commons and not to the courts of law".—[Official Report, 15th June 1971; Vol. 819, c. 378.]
Therefore, they are answerable only in this House.
It may be that Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball can go back to the United States and may not suffer any undue consequences when they do. But none of us can be absolutely sure of that, since, on television just before announcement of the Home Secretary's decision, there was a discussion in which an ex-CIA officer indicated that they did want to see Mr. Agee back in the United States. They may well suffer some consequences if they return there.
But, more than that, there is the precedent. If the precedent which you set yesterday, Mr. Speaker—that we cannot have a Standing Order No. 9 debate on an issue such as this—is allowed to stand, a man may be deported from this country and returned to his country of origin where he may be executed.
This point arose in the case of two Moroccan pilots who were sent from Gibraltar to Morocco. In consequence, they suffered the death penalty. This arises only in rare cases. I have looked through the precedents and the last debate on the subject was in 1971 in the Dutschke case. Before that we have to look back to the 1960s when Henry Brooke was Home Secretary. It will be a rare case in which a Standing Order No. 9 debate is allowed.
I urge upon you, Mr. Speaker, that this is precisely the case for a Standing Order No. 9 debate. It cannot be said that there cannot be a discussion on the matter because security is involved. It is precisely because it is about security that it is not discussable in any other forum. If it were not about security, an appeal could be made to the adjudicators under the Immigration Act 1971. It was taken out of their province by this House, because this House said that the appropriate place to discuss such matters was here.
Therefore, I urge upon you again, Mr. Speaker, that this issue ought to be discussed. It would be a travesty of justice and a derogation from the rights of this House if we did not discuss it next week.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did me the courtesy this morning of sending me a letter in which he outlined the cases to which he has referred this afternoon.
First, I should tell the House that when I deal with an application under Standing Order No. 9 the side of the House from which the application comes is of no concern to me. I hope that in the year in which I have occupied the Chair, that has become clear to the House.
Next, I refreshed my memory following the hon. Gentleman's letter. I must tell the House that it is not for me to decide whether this matter is to be debated in the weeks that remain —I emphasise "weeks"—before the deportation order would be put into effect. The responsibility for that does not lie with the occupant of the Chair. It lies somewhere else.
I have to decide on the narrow issue whether the matter is to be given precedence tonight or on Monday night over the business. I have to decide whether to give precedence to this matter. My judgment is the same as yesterday. I fear that I cannot grant the application.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will understand that I shall, of course, listen to points of order which do not deal with my ruling because my ruling is not open to question.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, on some occasions similar to this I have asked to be allowed to speak on a point of order and I have never questioned the decision of the Chair. I do not now intend to do so. You have deliberately and rightly given some guidance to the House by emphasising where the responsibility lies. We are in the presence of the Home Secretary and Leader of the House. I put to you, Mr. Speaker, that it was found possible in the Dutschke case for the then Home Secretary and the Cabinet that he represented to find time to arrange a debate


before the order in that case was carried out. It would be an eternal shame if my own colleagues could not live up to the same reputation of providing time as early as possible for this matter to be debated. A Home Secretary of liberal tradition and tendencies should provide that time.
The point of order that I wish to make is a general one. It concerns urgency rather than the issue which you, Mr. Speaker, have told us belongs to the Government. It is urgency that takes precedence over the other business before the House, which, as you said, belongs entirely to you. It was argued in the House and in the Committee which revised the Order that the tendency should be to make it easier for the House to debate matters of urgency with the least possible delay.
I am not in fear of contradiction on this one narrow point. That was the purpose of the deliberations and the conclusion of the Committee which dealt with the matter and of the approval subsequently given by the House. That being so, if the spirit of the recommendation was, by design, to make it easier for the House to deal with matters of importance with the least possible delay— importance and without delay are the main definitions—would it not be possible to go with the spirit of that recommendation and in that way enable us to decide whether other business should wait and this business should be given precedence?

Mr. Whitehead: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I, too, in no sense wish to question your ruling. I accept it absolutely. Earlier this afternoon the Lord President said that time could not be found in Government time to debate this matter, and that the House must seek other remedies. The only other remedy we have is to seek a debate under Standing Order No. 9. If that is withheld, and if the Executive is to be answerable to the House of Commons, we are forced to appeal, through you, for a statement from the Lord President that may help you, Mr. Speaker, and us in our difficulty over this matter.

Mr. Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you rightly pointed out, responsibility for the allocation of time is not yours. However, this happens to be Thursday afternoon. It is

but a short time since the Lord President made his statement about the business for next week and for 1st March. That exhausts the time left to Agee and Hosenball. Just as surely as if we were going into recess, unless there is a substantial extension of the time they have in this country, there will be no possibility, other than on the Adjournment or under Standing Order No. 9, for the matter to be raised.
Would it not be most unfortunate if unwittingly, because of the time involved and the general interpretation of Standing Order No. 9, these men were to be denied a hearing of any description? It would be unfortunate not only for this House and the Government but for the whole name of British justice, which, if it is to be done, must be seen to be done. If it cannot be done in the open elsewhere, surely it must be done in the open in this House.

Mr. Speaker: I deeply appreciate the way in which the three hon. Members have made their substantial points, of which I take note.
I shall deal, first, with the point raised by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) about the date of 1st March. It is my clear understanding that it is one month, or the best part of one month, before these two persons can be deported if they put in an appeal. Such is the time factor. I am not seeking to enlarge the debate. I am now answering, I hope finally, the point that was raised.
Secondly, with regard to the spirit of the resolution referred to by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), I want to interpret the spirit properly. But, as hon. Members might have guessed, I examined this matter very carefully. I regret that I am unable this afternoon to change my judgment.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: In order to save the time of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the three motions relating to Statutory Instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Married Women and Widows) Amendment


Regulations 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instrumnts, &amp;c.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Consequential Amendments) Amendment Regulations 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Export Guarantees (Extension of Period) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. —[Mr. Frank R. White.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[7th ALLOTTED DAY]—Considered.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (STANDARDS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: The Opposition are delighted to have this opportunity on the Adjournment to raise the question of education standards. Strictly speaking, it should be the responsibility of the Government to have a debate on this issue, especially as they apparently attach so much importance to it. But, in the absence of any sign from the Government that they will give the House an opportunity to debate this important topic, the Opposition have stepped into the breach. [Interruption.] I understand the strong feelings of hon. Gentlemen. I trust that our discussion of standards of education will be of a calmer character.
It would be strange if the only body not to be consulted or not to have an opportunity to state its views on the vital question of standards were the House of Commons. I believe it to be fruitless to get into a discussion of whether standards have fallen, because we cannot in the nature of things establish that matter. Therefore, let us deal with the facts of the situation.
The facts from which we start our discussion are, I think, generally accepted: first, the anxiety and dissatisfaction of many parents with the education that their children are receiving and, secondly, the fear that is felt both by representatives of employers and trade unions that we are not equipping young people for the needs of twentieth century industrial society. We certainly welcome the Government's conversion to the standards gospel which we have been preaching for over three years. It is irritating politically to have one's clothes stolen, but educationally we are delighted. If I may have the right hon. Lady's attention for a moment, the more of my


clothes that she takes, the happier I shall be.
What is important is that the right policies are followed. It matters not who initiates these policies, provided that the interests of children and young people are served. We certainly hope that there has been a true conversion here—a real . I know that the Under-Secretary of State suffered at her convent school, so I shall translate it for her. It means a real change of mind and heart on this subject and in this context the putting forward of a new set of priorities.
I wish to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The right hon. Lady is a very great improvement on her predecessor. But that, of course, is a qualified compliment. After the reign of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition at the Department of Education and Science—a reign which has earned in this House the soubriquet of the glorious reign—there followed an ice age. Now, after the ice age, there are the first few rays of sunshine. It would be foolish to be angry at the sun. The Secretary of State could well turn out to be one of the great Secretaries of State for Education and Science of a similar calibre to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot say more than that.
But—there is always a but—I fear that there is a flaw in the crystal. That is the continued vendetta which is being waged against the grammar schools and the obsession with the question of secondary reorganisation. I fear that there will be a diversion of much needed energies into that dead end and into the dragooning of the one-third of local education authorities which have neither the will not the means to turn all their schools into comprehensive schools.
It is totally inconsistent with the policy of promoting high standards to destroy good schools where high standards have been achieved. I think in particular in recent days of the decision to cease to maintain the Marylebone Grammar School which, I should have thought, epitomised what we are trying to do in the education system. It is a school of moderate size—500 boys—with very high education standards, 76 per cent. of the entry to A-Levels being successful. One could say the same of the Mary Datchelor Girls' School which is facing a similar

fate. I am afraid that we have this reservation, so it can be only two cheers for the Secretary of State—two cheers for Shirley.
We hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to show herself more reasonable on this other issue than her predecessors have been. I hope that she will guide her self here by education, not political, considerations. It would be a tragedy if she thought that she might climb into No. 10 over the dead bodies of the grammar schools. The right hon. Lady will get to No. 10 in due course, but she must wait her turn. There are others in the queue. I repeat, she should be guided here by education, not political, considerations.
I want to examine a little more the vexed question of selection and the secondary system. There is common ground here. First, I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the education system in the foreseeable future will be mainly comprehensive. We are united in rejecting the 11-plus examination. There is no question of returning to the old tripartite system. Everyone accepts that all is not well in our schools. Whatever else the comprehensive gospel has delivered, it certainly is not the millennium. It is something less than that.
Therefore, the dispute over the organisation of the secondary system is narrowed to one extremely important point—namely, is there room within a predominantly comprehensive system for local option and for the retention of a number of selective schools? Of course, if one takes the view that selection is a mortal sin—or, to vary the metaphor from theology to the law, that it is malum in se—there can be no discussion of this issue and progress cannot be made. But if one considers the matter not on grounds of doctrine but from the educational point of view, one may get a different result.
I was interested in a statement that the Secretary of State made in the television programme in which we both took part the other day. It was something less than a "love-in", but it was not exactly a punch-up. I am quoting from a report in the Daily Mail, but I recall it myself. It said that the right hon. Lady
admitted last night that the comprehensive system is failing the gifted child.


Her exact words are here quoted:
It is an embarrassing and difficult point that the pro-comprehensive lobby, to which I am attached, finds it impossible to defend.
I quote that statement not to embarrass the right hon. Lady. I think that we shall get nowhere if, when a Minister manages to escape from the deadly embrace of a departmental brief and actually says something that is relevant, important and true, she is exposed to attack. What the Secretary of State is recognising here is the real problem of the gifted children, which could be met in part by a certain number of selective schools.
This has been recognised in, of all places, the Soviet Union. A letter in The Times written by Mr. Kolesnikov, the vice-chairman of the executive committee of the Novosibirsk City Soviet of Working People's Deputies, puts the case for selective schools in a way which no one could better:
Our sole criterion in selection is the gifts of a child. For, the early purposeful education and training of a bright teenager is of great benefit to society: he more quickly repays it to the maximum. Olympiads and this democratic method of an extensive search for talents amongst popular masses have been amply justified. We have found very many gifted teenagers in both cities and remote Siberian villages who, for example, studied higher mathematics in the 7th form. Why should we not search for such young people and help them energetically to devlop? For, such youth is the golden fund of any State!

Mr. Martin Flannery: He is a Conservative.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall not read out his long title again, but the writer of that letter is a member of a high-ranking committee in the Soviet Union.
However, the point which is being made—it is the crux of this issue—is that a selective school is not about privilege but about opportunity. It is above all about the opportunity for a bright child with a working-class background in a city such as Liverpool or Birmingham who, without that safety valve of a selective school, will be confined to a neighbourhood school where his talents may well not be able to flourish.
Last year's Education Act compelled local education authorities, against their judgment, to turn their schools into com-

prehensive schools. We stand by our pledge to repeal that Act. But what is important is not only the repeal of the Act but what comes after it. As the Secretary of State rightly said the other day, she would be unwilling to introduce a new Education Act without the support of the Opposition. I hope that she will seek to be open-minded on this issue of selection, that she will not launch a crusade against local authorities that are seeking only to do their best for their pupils, with totally inadequate resources, and that she will seek to be reasonable in practice on this vital issue.
Although we support the campaign for higher standards, we do not of course go along with everything that the Govern-are doing. One reason that we have sought this debate today is that we want to put down some markers in the development of the debate.
First, it is essential that the Secretary of State gets her priorities right. This is all the more important at a time when the education budget is being so savagely cut. It has been reduced by this Government are doing. One reason that we have severest cuts that we have seen in the history of education in this country. The Secretary of State can thank her stars that she is facing a responsible Opposition—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) may laugh, but we all know, if we had been the Government and had made cuts of this nature, what fury, synthetic and otherwise, we should have faced from Labour Members. The trouble is that we get a responsible Opposition when it is the Conservative Party in opposition, but, unfortunately, not when it is the Labour Party.
The first priority in relation to standards should he teachers and the second, buildings. The Secretary of State will have to look for economies in her budget. I would suggest that one place to look is the administration of education. In 1964 the administrative and non-teaching staff in schools comprised 40 per cent. of the teacher force. The teaching staff represented 60 per cent.
A decade late, in 1974, the administrative staff were 49 per cent. and the teaching staff had gone down to 51 per cent. That is an extraordinary increase in 10 years. The number of administrators had risen from 410,000 to 700,000. It


the Secretary of State has to have economies, that is where she will find scope for them.
But for heaven's sake let the right hon. Lady not cut down on the number of teachers who are actually teaching. Let her look also to the local authorities. I suggest that she could consider giving them back freedom over questions of school meals and school transport so that they can decide their own priorities within the limited money available to them.
My second point also concerns priorities, but this time within the overall concept of standards. If the Secretary of State tries to do everything, she will end up doing nothing. It is in literacy and numeracy that the main burden of the attack should still be. I would counsel her to go back to the national standards which existed in literacy and numeracy until they were mistakenly done away with by the Labour Government in 1966. Nothing would do more to raise standards in schools than a return to that discipline.
But within that spectrum I appeal to the right hon. Lady to give first place to mathematics. There is a real crisis in schools in mathematics, a virtual collapse in mathematics teaching in many primary schools. The key is better teachers. Two out of five primary school teachers have no O-level mathematics. We believe that the teaching of mathematics should require a qualification up to O-level for all teachers who teach mathematics in primary schools. That is the minimum qualification and it is not unreasonable.
In practice, it would mean that all primary teachers would have to have an O-level qualification in mathematics. Secondary school teachers should obtain qualifications up to A-levels in mathematics although not all, of course, would teach mathematics in a secondary school. But that would also serve to raise standards.
What about those who are already teaching in the schools? Surely they should be helped by in-service training, because so often it is not the pupils who need remedial education but, unfortunately, the teachers. As the Secretary of State herself said in January:
During the golden years of expansion some young men and women entered the profession who had no great talent for teaching".

She can say that again! But a statement of the problem does not solve it. An analysis is not an answer. They have got in and how are they to be got out?
The Secretary of State has a talent for grasping nettles. I would offer another to add to her rather poisonous bouquet. Has she considered the problem of contracts for teachers? Has she considered whether the time has not come for teachers to be on fixed contracts, including head teachers? I hope that is something that her Department is considering.
A third marker that we seek to put down concerns sixth-form colleges. I was alarmed by the speech that the Secretary of State made recently at the Labour Party conference in Harrogate. Even allowing for the setting it was a worrying speech. The right hon. Lady seemed to go overboard in her enthusiastic espousal of sixth-form colleges. I beg her not to make the same mistakes over sixth-form colleges that were made over comprehensive schools and uncritically accept a form of organisation that may well have something to be said for it, but that also has a great deal to be said against it. Just as we want a variety of schools, so we want a variety of sixth-form provision. It is far too early to say that the only type of sixth-form organisation should be the sixth-form college.
I know that there are arguments of economy such as economy over equipment and over the shortage of skilled teachers. But economy, after all, is not everything in education, otherwise, I suppose, we should abolish all the village schools. Yet those schools are worth preserving on community grounds which outweigh the financial disadvantage which they may have. It is a parallel situation with regard to the sixth-form college.
The fourth point that we would make concerns examinations. The Secretary of State has been elegantly figure skating along the edge of this problem and has been doing figures of eight and other manoeuvres. But the time is really overdue for a decision on this matter and on the ill-thought-out proposals put forward by the Schools Council for a common examination.
In November I read with alarm that the Chairman of the Schools Council was saying that these proposals were still very


much alive. If they are it is the Secretary of State's responsibility to kill them off. It is high time that these proposals, which have been so heavily criticised throughout the education world were dropped. It is a chimera to think that one can have a satisfactory common examination because confidence in the whole system will be undermined. Nor is an approach where standards are made subjective as opposed to objective satisfactory. One has to remember that the customers of the system should have confidence in it.
I welcome very much what the Secretary of State has said about the possibilities of a revised form of school certificate with compulsory subjects such as mathematics, English, science and one foreign language. That is an excellent idea and at a stroke might well solve this difficult problem of the core curriculum.
The fifth point we wish to make concerns the curriculum and the world of work. I am in agreement with the Secretary of State in that neither of us wishes to see a centralised control of the curriculum. It is essential to retain flexibility within the system. Today's relevance does tend to become tomorrow's irrelevance.
With regard to the Schools Council, what we need is not a revolution but a reform. We should very much like to see more representation from industry on the council, but wo do not want to see the council reduced to being a creature of the Secretary of State.
It is important in education that there should be independent bodies which are able, without fear or favour, to voice their views on education matters. It would indeed be a tragedy if, at the very moment when the imperial presidency is apparently dying in the United States, we were to find it reincarnated in educational form in of all unlikely places Elizabeth House. The Secretary of State a constitutional sovereign, yes; the glittering smile, to which the Secretary of State has referred, is fine, as well. But I hope that behind that smile she will resist any thoughts or temptations of turning herself into some kind of queen empress ruling absolutely over the educational world. Our success in the educational system has been a result of the division of powers rather than a concentration of them.
I hope the right hon. Lady will also devote her energies to closely relating the last years of school work to the work of industry. The Minister of State made an excellent speech on this not so long ago. He said:
We have allowed the schools to drift further and further away from the realities of life in a production-based economy, with the result that more and more of the best brains of each generation of students seem to have been motivated by the determination to keep their hands clean at all costs.
We are now witnessing the ultimate absurdity: a country that depends more than almost any other on its manufacturing capacity is churning out thousands of sociologists, psychologists and environmentalists.
Those are indeed words of wisdom. What the Secretary of State is suffering from must be catching and others are contracting this disease. If she would allow her Under-Secretary of State to speak occasionally, she might show the same symptoms.
We must treat the relationship to the world of work with the utmost urgency My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) will shortly be organising a conference on this. I hope that the discussions which the Secretary of State is arranging at her own conferences will be fruitful.
It does not matter whose fault it is that the thing has gone wrong. What is important now is to get it right. Of course the purpose of education is to develop the personality, talents, intellect, affections and emotions of those who are being educated, but to do that for life in the real world and not for a life in some kind of platonic world of abstract universals.
What we wish to develop is education for life in Britain in the second half of the twentieth century—a Britain which is struggling to survive in an even more competitive world—and to sell the products of our industry without which all our ideals for society will become a chimera and compassion will be a mere sentiment which we shall not be able to translate into reality.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Once again in his speech, tempered though it was with moderation, the hon. Gentleman has sought to distinguish the characteristics of the pre-occupation with the world of work and industry. But is he not again defending the system in which academic concentration of our


more able people is devoted towards academic objectives in higher education and not to the objectives that he is now putting forward?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The criticism about a lack of relation to industry applies to all schools, whether they be selective or non-selective, and a reshaping of the curriculum should apply right across the board to all those schools. Certainly we should get rid of the idea that, because a pupil has followed an academic bent, there is not room for him in industry. There is a great need in industry for people with that kind of qualification, especially in our more advanced technological industries.
Man lives by bread. That is true. We accept that. But he does not live by bread alone. It is a disappointment to us that in the course of her reappraisal, the Secretary of State, apparently, has left out the sphere which is perhaps of the greatest importance and which is most in need of renewal. I refer, of course, to the sphere of religious and moral education.
We support the entrenched sections of the 1944 Act, which provide for a common act of worship and for religious instruction in the schools. But the danger to those sections is not assault from without but decay from within. It is a sadness to me that, apparently, it is not a subject for discussion at the conferences which the right hon. Lady is organising. Again, we shall be seeking to fill this gap by co-operating in a conference on this subject later this year.
The purpose of religious education cannot be the purpose that was laid down in the religious sections of the 1944 Act. Yet it is a purpose that is equally important. It is to arouse in young people an appreciation of the importance of the spiritual. That, after all, is also, ultimately, the purpose of art education. It is also to arouse in them an appreciation of the possibility of making religious commitments and a realisation of the important part that Christianity has played both in our culture and in our history.
Although it is true that our religious life in this country has been enriched greatly by the worship and the beliefs of those of other faiths, it is nevertheless a

fact that the principal religious experience of this country has been the experience of Christianity. By and large, religion has come to this country through the Judeo-Christian tradition.
It is essential also that moral education be kept closely related to religious education. Standards are important here as well. By "moral education", I do not mean sex education, although that is very important. I mean the need to impart a sense of values, a sense of what is right and what is wrong, and a sense of personal and social responsibility to those in our schools.
In one sense education is not a political subject. But in another sense it is right at the centre of the political stage. It is infinitely more important than the dismal science, if it be a science, of economics which so much dominates our debates. Long after those debates have been consigned to the bound volumes of Hansard—and it is difficult to think of any deeper oblivion than that—the decisions that we take in education matters will still be alive and of importance and the branches of that tree will still be bearing fruit. High standards of intellect and moral excellence in our schools are the goals upon which we must set our sights. By the criterion of whether our educational policies promote or retard those standards those policies must be judged.

5.5 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster-General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I am sure that the whole House welcomes this opportunity to debate education standards, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) for the moderate way in which he put his case. I wish that the same applied to all his hon. Friends and to all parts of the Press. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have extended an invitation to the spokesmen of the Conservative and Liberal Parties to attend the regional conferences, and I trust that there will be an opportunity for them to say there to a wider public audience what the hon. Gentleman has said here today.
I want to touch upon two of the matters referred to by the hon. Gentleman which are of importance. He mentioned St. Marylebone Grammar School


and the Mary Datchelor School in London. I readily agree that they are both good schools. I do not deny that there are good schools in almost every sphere of education. But it is worth putting on record that in the case of both those schools my hon. Friends and I have made a real effort to try to keep them in the system.
In the case of St. Marylebone Grammar School, there is a certain irony in the fact that its destruction flows almost directly from the action of the parents' association in taking to court its refusal to consider an amalgamation with another school in consequence of which the school could not continue with the very small level of entrants which it would otherwise have had.
In the case of the Mary Datchelor School, where there is strong parental support for the school to continue in the ILEA system, not only have we done everything possible to urge upon the governors and the staff the need for this school to survive, but the Inner London Education Authority has made it clear that it would be willing to continue discussions even after the closure notice on the school, and I am pleased that the London Diocesan Board has itself come forward with an offer to sustain the school. Therefore, it is open to the school governors, at any point that they wish, to continue this school. It is not our wish to close it. We believe that the school, admittedly in a comprehensive pattern, has much to contribute to education in South London. I readily take this opportunity to ask the governors to reconsider what I believe to be a short-sighted attitude which is not in the interests of the education of all our children.

Mr. Harry Lamborn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the governors consistently, throughout the whole saga of Mary Datchelor, have refused to meet the parents? They have on two occasions turned down resolutions which would have convened meetings of the parents, the staff and the board of governors. They have taken decisions. They took a decision to turn down the offer of the London Diocesan Board of Education to ensure the future of the school without even having the courtesy to invite representatives of that

body to explain their proposals to the board of governors.
The most ironical feature of all was that the proposals to make the school non-selective emanated from the Cloth Workers Company and was strongly supported by its representatives on the board of governors. It was only when they could not take the school out of South London to Sutton that they changed their attitude and rejected their previous decision for the school to operate on the basis of a non-selective intake.

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend is a member of the governing body and what he says attests to the hard work which he and a few others have put in to attempt to get the governing body to reconsider the position. However, as far as I am concerned, the position is still open, and I hope that the governing body will give it further consideration.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford also made reference to what I said in a television debate about the gifted child, and I know that he would not deliberately distort what I said. He will recall that the context in which this was discussed was a suggestion by the Nobel Prize winner, Sir George Porter, that there was a handful of children—he himself said one in 1,000 or 2,000—who were so exceptionally gifted that the ordinary school could not deal with them, and one might say the ordinary grammar school as much as the ordinary comprehensive school.
I do not deny that there is a problem with regard to those children who are virtual geniuses, whether their genius lies in music or in mathematics. It is a general problem for all of us in education, because there is a conflict between making the highly gifted child part of the whole community in the sense that he understands the social and other needs of his fellow citizens and stretching him to the limit of his capacity.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford will recall that what I said was that in my view, within a group of comprehensive schools, it might be possible for some to specialise in shortage subjects, provided that not one school specialised in all shortage subjects because that would be to introduce selection by another route. The hon. Gentleman said that if the cuts


in education had been made by a Conservative Government, they would never have been accepted by the country.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, by the Labour Party.

Mrs. Williams: I apologise. It is worth putting on record that it is Conservative education authorities that are implementing some of the most disturbing cuts. I understand the difficulties that some of them are in, but they are making suggestions that seem odd in terms of education priorities.
For example, it is proposed in Norfolk to end all school meals. We have had to point out that that is not in line with the law of the land. Secondly, some authorities are unwilling to look again at the extensive use of places in independent schools while being willing to see pupil-teacher ratios deteriorate rapidly. It is because of that degree of the use of discretion that I do not go along with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Department of Education and Science should still further abdicate its influence in local government.
I end my remarks on these matters by saying that in respect of in-service education, which I believe to be of the most crucial importance to the quality of education, I know that I have the support of my own party—I do not know whether I have the support of the Conservative Party—for urging that such education should be among the highest priorities, whereas I am afraid that it is becoming the target of many local authority reductions.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If the right hon. Lady is to give a fair picture of the situation, surely she should recognise that the rate support grant has been—I hesitate to use the word "rigged"—perhaps slanted towards the urban cities, the large urban authorities, and that the rural authorities have suffered, which at present happen to be mainly Conservative authorities. Therefore, responsibility for the squeeze is that of the Government. The unfortunate Conservative rural authorities are having to struggle as best they can with a reduced amount of money.

Mrs. Williams: It is fair to say that the rate support grant settlement moved towards the conurbations. I do not

quarrel with that, However, I was making rather a different point. I was saying that some of the education priorities in respect of cuts and what is to be sustained in some of the shire counties seem very odd. In some cases authorities have been extremely unwilling to increase rates, even where they are below the rateable levels of the surrounding local authorities, to sustain such crucial matters as staffing standards. Doubtless there will be other occasions for pursuing this issue.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is a majority of local education authorities under Labour control and that the majority of them, at least 26 according to my information, are not doing as much as they undertook to do for nursery education when they were elected? Indeed, if anything, they are cutting back in that sphere. Nursery education was one of the commitments in the 1974 manifestos upon which the Labour Party now seems to be reneging.

Mrs. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman cares to send me his information, I shall gladly examine it. My latest information is that the only authority that is closing nursery schools is a Conservative authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) referred to the whole question of the relevance of industry and working life. As I intend to devote most of my remarks to standards in rather a narrow way, I shall take this opportunity to make one or two observations on what he said.
I believe that my hon. Friend's remarks are of profound importance to the country and the House. Deeply embedded in our traditional education system—notably in the universities, the so-called great independent schools and the grammar schools —is a strong hierarchy of view that to become a professional person or an academic person is in some sense a much finer calling than to work in industry in any capacity.
I think that the whole House recognises that that tradition, which so clearly downgrades industrial and craft achievements, is one of the greatest problems with which we have to cope in education. My hon. Friend was implying—I am sympathetic to his view—that one of the fruits


of reorganised education from which we may benefit will be the opportunity to look again at this tradition and to establish a fairer hierarchy of values. If my hon. Friend is right, and I believe he may well be, that alone will have gone a long way to justify the whole of secondary reorganisation.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford referred to religious education. I say immediately that a number of the most important issues in education may not, by the very nature of things, be discussed in the present education debate, but that does not mean for a moment that we shall not move on to consider them. The hon. Gentleman referred to religious education but I believe that it is also necessary to consider, for example, discipline and punishment in our schools and the role of parents. We shall consider all these matters and I hope that we shall consider them with Parliament. The fact that they have not been included in the existing education debate does not indicate any lack of recognition of their importance.
I turn briefly to what I want to say about standards because it is terribly important to lay before the House and the country the evidence that we have. I believe that we have as much evidence as anyone else in the country, and more than most, and it indicates that standards have improved over the past 10 years. They might not have improved as much as we might wish, but as the system settles down again after reorganisation, and above all after the rapid expansion of the late 1960s and early 1970s when there was an explosion in the size of the school population, there are most encouraging signs coming through of which I shall give evidence to the House that standards are beginning to turn up more rapidly.
The broad position is highly encouraging, although there are some areas of serious concern that I have no intention of disguising. It would not be right or fair to the generation of children who can never be educated again to disguise any weaknesses that may exist. I say that to my hon. Friends, who, I think, will support me in the general view that standards are rising. For us, too, it would not be right to pretend that there are not some areas of concern.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My right hon. Friend has talked about education standards and it is a fundamental point. Does she not agree that when we use the term "education standards" we are talking about standards of measured attainment and that standards of education and education standards as such are different? They might be related, but I suggest that education standards are matters that cannot easily be judged, and are probably more subjective and qualitative than quantitative. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the overlap between the two concepts that has made some of the previous debates on this matter not as fruitful as they might have been?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend's point is profound. However, I do not have to follow him down that road. Even on the narrow basis of measured attainment, I think that we can show that there has been no fall in standards of the sort to which so much currency has been given by some parts of the Press. One of the most common features of education is that there is always someone who will complain about standards. Perhaps the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) will find himself in sympathy with the Chief Secretary of the Education Department in 1904, who stated:
there are millions of children in this country who from their babyhood up to the age of 14, are drilled in reading, writing and arithmetic upon a system, the result of which is that when they attain the age of 13 or 14 and are finally dismissed from school, they can neither read, nor write, nor cipher".
So much for what that Chief Secretary said in 1904, at a time when teaching was essentially learning by rote in exactly the way to which some of our less well-informed newspapers would wish to see us return.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Except The Guardian.

Mrs. Williams: Yes, with that exception. I make a broader point. If we regard the much more recent achievements of the selective system, it is not unreasonable to point out that in 1974 the estimate of the number of illiterates was 2 million and that of those 2 million 88 per cent., on a sample basis, were over the age of 21, which means that they cannot have been educated in the comprehensive system. They have now come


back within the adult literacy campaign, and over half of the males have been over 30 years old.
So it will not do for so many people to pretend, as presently, that illiteracy is something which has suddenly emerged from nowhere when we all know that one of the tragedies of our history is that there is a substantial number of illiterates in our society, many of them educated entirely by the methods which are being so shortsightedly advocated in some quarters.
There is, however, more recent evidence. The Bullock Report, referring to reading, said:
The most reasonable conclusion is that the standards of 15 year olds have remained the same over the period 1960–71.
It then quoted the following mean scores of reading for 15-year-olds. They are: for 1955, 42–18; for 1960, 44–57; and for 1971, 44·65. That shows a steady, if gradual, improvement. The report said in paragraph 2.25:
What appears to be happening is that while reading standards at the lower end of the ability range have improved in most socio-economic groups, the poor readers among the children of the unskilled and semi-skilled have not improved their standards commensurately.
This is to a great extent the so-called inner urban problem.
There is a much more recent survey. The National Foundation for Educational Research has given mean scores for reading tests for 11-year-olds. These are: for 1955, 28·71; for 1960, 29·48; for 1970–when the statistics are uncertain because the sample was small —it was 29·38, which is a dip. The most recent figure is for 1976. I shall not place upon it more weight than it can bear, but it shows an improvement to 31·07, which is the best mean score since 1955, when the tests began.
There is also evidence from a different field—that of verbal reasoning tests of pupils undertaken by the Inner London Education Authority. The tests were on pupils transferring from primary schools. The median scores are: 101·1 in 1965, which roughly coincides with the major expansion in the schools, down to 94 in 1969. I am delighted to say that the figures have shown a steady improvement from that year to the figure of 98·4 in 1976, almost recovering to the level of 1965.
The crucial point is this. I have taken the figures for inner London, where the surveyors have pointed out that there has been an unfavourable population movement out towards the new towns and the suburbs. So we are looking almost certainly at a catchment area containing lower income and unskilled groups, which is a different position from that which obtained in 1965. That point was made not by me but by those who undertook the survey.
All this shows that there is no evidence in any of the national tests that have been undertaken or, for that matter, in the local tests, to support the assertion that standards of reading are generally lower. I think I have already mentioned the reasons for this. First, there has been, or there was until recently, a high rate of turnover in schools. Secondly, the moves for reorganisation have taken up the time of teachers. Thirdly, the profusion of methods and approaches to teaching have to some extent been confusing to young teachers passing through the colleges.
I believe that much the most significant factor, and one that we frequently overlook, is the colossal rate of turnover of teachers in recent years. I can give one instance of this. In the Inner London Education Authority area —I could take other areas—the turnover of teachers was 25·8 per cent. in 1973–74 —I cannot lay my hands on the figures at the moment, but I shall check them to make sure they are correct This fell to 17·8 per cent. in 1974–75, and last year they were down to 11·9 per cent., which is one in eight. So, over the last few years, the rate of wastage of teachers has markedly slowed down.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There are not the jobs for them.

Mrs. Williams: That is not the point. The significant point is that there is a much lower wastage rate of teachers, and I am talking about the wastage of teachers holding jobs, not about the number of teachers taken on. I think that the hon. Member for Chelmsford is bright enough to understand the distinction.
Let me say a word about two recent tests which are likely to be quoted by the hon. Member for Brent, North and which point interestingly in opposite directions. To take a recent survey in


Manchester, it is true to say that there was a decline in the number of O-level passes there between 1974 and 1976. The figures for the county schools show that in 1973 there was a 54 per cent. pass rate. For 1974, it was 47 per cent.; for 1975, 46 per cent.; and for 1976, 46 per cent. The interesting point here is that a decline is reported in the unreorganised Roman Catholic schools in Manchester, though it was not such a rapid decline. The same thing has happened in respect of A-levels.
Let us now take the results for the Oxfordshire authority, which has the same problems of rehousing and population movement as Manchester, but where the trend is in the opposite direction. The A-level pass rates there—it is a largely reorganised county—went from 67 per cent. in 1974 to 74 per cent. in 1976. This demonstrates again what the less sophisticated critics of education are very unlikely to mention, and that is the extent to which population movement, new estates, new towns and the like have much more to do with what is happening in education than some of the more general remarks that are made about education standards.
Let me end with a few more statistics. There has been an increase in the last 10 years, between 1964–65 and 1974–75, of approximately 7 per cent. in the number of children of all ages leaving school. Of these children, the number passing one or more A-levels has gone up—admittedly not very much—from 14 per cent. of the total school population to 15 per cent. of the total school population. There is no evidence of falling standards there.
Those passing five or more O-levels at higher grades have also increased in this same period. The most recent figures show an increase from 8 per cent. of the total age group to 9 per cent. Again, there is no evidence of falling standards there. However, there has been a dramatic improvement in the number of children getting higher grades of CSE or the middle grades of O-level. This has gone up from 14 per cent. of the age group in 1964–65 to 25 per cent. in 1974–75.
There is, therefore, evidence of a slight improvement in A-level and O-level pass

standards. I am referring to percentages, not to absolute figures, in order to leave out of account the change in the size of the school population. There has been a dramatic increase in the average grades in terms of examination passing, with the overall result that four out of five of our children now take some sort of public qualification, whereas 10 years ago only just over one in two managed to achieve that.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Has my right hon. Friend any equally encouraging evidence on standards of admission to universities, a subject about which there has been a great deal of criticism?

Mrs. Williams: The only immediate evidence which springs to mind—perhaps my hon. Friend will pursue this subseqently through questions—was the recent statement by the vice-chancellors to the effect that they did not see any decline in the standard of entry of those coming into the universities.
Earlier I mentioned the wastage rate for teachers. The House may like to know the overall national figures. These indicate an opportunity for substantial further improvement in standards in the next few years. Nationally the wastage rate has fallen from 10½ per cent. in 1968 to 6½ per cent. last year. Of course the rate for inner London is much higher. That means that we are moving into a situation in which we have a much more stable teaching force, with all that implies in terms of greater opportunities for children, in particular the most disadvantaged children. The rate of turnover in disadvantaged schools is many times higher than that in the more favoured and advantaged schools.
I turn to three areas which have caused considerable concern—modern languages, mathematics and science. I am rather worried about the situation in modern languages. We have placed a full report by Her Majesty's inspectors on these three subjects in the Library. My main worry about modern languages is that more and more schools are offering only French, and many youngsters do not appreciate the great opportunities in industry and commerce that come from learning some of the less popular languages.


The number of youngsters taking French at CSE level rose from 8,000 in 1965 to 104,000 in 1974. The number taking A-level French fell from 26,000 in 1965 to 25,000 in 1974. The same pattern is repeated in German where there has been a 16-fold increase in CSE and no appreciable change in A-levels. The trend towards slight increases is seen in Italian, Russian and other languages. Ordinary boys and girls in comprehensive schools who never took languages before are now taking French. That is a good thing, but we are rather disturbed about the drop-off in language studies in the higher years, particularly the sixth form.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Secretary of State attribute this trend to the fact that languages are being taught where middle schools have been introduced?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has a point. Where middle schools have been introduced, children are taking languages rather younger. But primary schools have abandoned language teaching. The inspectors are not quite sure about that. We must encourage more youngsters to study languages, especially in upper secondary school.
In mathematics the position is a good deal better than the House might expect. The number of A-level passes rose from 35,000 in 1964 to 44,000 in 1974. The number of O-level passes rose from 160,000 in 1964 to 171,000 in 1974. After English, maths is the most popular subject for O-levels and is emerging as a common course subject. In CSE grade 5 or better the number of passes in maths increased from 166,000 in 1970 to 295,000 in 1974. That is a remarkable increase in a four-year period and is evidence that a great deal is being done for the average child.
But if we are to extend mathematics, we must encourage interest in the subject beyond the age of 15 or 16 into the sixth forms whether they are academic or nonacademic. We must also tackle the shortage of maths teachers. The Department of Education and Science has mounted a crash course in this field and we are looking at certain proposals for increasing the number of maths teachers.
In the science subjects the position is in many ways very encouraging. There

has been a 24 per cent. increase in the number of boys and a 100 per cent. increase in the numbers of girls passing O-level physics. There has been a 20 per cent. increase in the number of boys and a 90 per cent. increase in the number of girls passing O-level chemistry. There has been a 91 per cent. increase in the number of boys and a 30 per cent. increase in the number of girls passing O-level biology.
From these figures—for the period 1964–74—it emerges quite clearly that there is an educational myth growing up that boys should be chemists and physicists and girls should be biologists. That is absolute nonsense. The upsurge of interest in science and the obtaining of science qualifications by both boys and girls is one of the encouraging aspects of education today which the Press has overlooked. From reading the papers one gets the impression that people are running away in hordes from science and technology. In fact, there has been a substantial shift of interest towards science up to university and polytechnic levels.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: What about the influence of the Prime Minister in this respect?

Mrs. Williams: There is a resurgence of public feeling following the Prime Minister's invitation to pupils to become scientists. That is a scientific demonstration of the opinion of my right hon. Friend.
Before I sit down I shall make a point about the Schools Council's examination proposals, because there is liable to be wide misunderstanding about these. I share the Schools Council's objective of hoping to get a common system of examining. At the moment we are struggling with multiple examinations and we have been doing so for far too long.
It is my absolute and inescapable responsibility to find out whether a common system is feasible. I do not know whether it is, because it would have to cover a wide range of youngsters. At the moment 80 per cent. of the school population takes a form of examination, and obviously it would be much better to have a common system. The Schools Council looked at a common examination and backed away from that, but I think


that we should have a common system. We are looking at this urgently and I shall determine my position in the light of the studies being undertaken.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford raised the point of the independence of the Schools Council. I put my point of view on the record. The last thing I want to see is a Schools Council which is the poodle of the Department. That is no way forward at all. However, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Schools Council should have a wider representation of lay people. In this respect I agree with the findings of the Select Committee, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that there should be wider discussions between my Department and the Schools Council about some of the priorities for work.
We have different sources of information and it is in the interests of education to put together the knowledge we have and determine where our main priorities lie. I have no desire to change the Schools Council into a rubber stamp for Ministers and officials in the Department of Education and Science.
I hope that I have shown that there has been a great deal of exaggeration in the claims made about falling standards of education. These claims do not stand up to the evidence available. The problem is that by its very nature the evidence is somewhat patchy and regional. I have given the House the evidence we have in abbreviated form. More is available in the Library for those who wish to pursue it.
While it is true that standards have improved and in some cases improved markedly, none of us should rest until we reach the highest possible standards for all children in the maintained sector. Whether we are teachers or Members of Parliament, that is our responsibility.
I believe that we can raise standards reasonably rapidly in three ways. The first way is not in issue between the Opposition and Government Front Benches, although sadly it may be in issue in respect of what happens at local authority level. I refer to the significance of in-service and induction training of teachers. Much the best way of dealing with the problem of teachers who need support is through such developments.
Secondly, we accept that there should be individual monitoring to pick up children who are having difficulty with reading, writing, arithmetic, or whatever it may be. That is not the same thing as having a set of national tests after a year illustrating a deleterious rather than a favourable situation. I hope that the House sees the distinction between monitoring, which any good teacher employs, and endless national tests with a great deal of publicity of the results, which is destructive to the school that is trying to do a good job in a difficult area and which runs counter to what we want to achieve in education terms.
Thirdly, I wish to refer to the work of the inspectorate, which will shortly complete a wide study of primary schools and which is engaged in taking a 10 per cent. sample of secondary schools from which the best practice in the schools clearly will emerge. We shall learn many lessons provided that we have the humility to make sure that those of us who have ground to make up learn from those who have achieved a great deal. That surely is the best way forward in our decentralised system.

I conclude by saying—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West) rose—

Mrs. Williams: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have already allowed a good number of interventions.
I have sought to lay before the House the evidence that we have before us. I believe that it shows that there are gaps we need to make good, but it does not bear out some of the wilder charges made by those who are in no way friends of education.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: If we are to hear a reasonable number of Back-Bench speeches, clearly we must all be brief, and I shall attempt to observe that rule. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Education and Science will forgive me if I do not refer to a number of matters mentioned in their contributions.
I begin by saying that this is one of the most encouraging education debates in which I have taken part in some years in


this House. I warmly commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, who set the tone of the debate. I echo his words by saying that there is no point in going round the country saying that there is ample evidence to suggest a major drop in standards. Instead, I believe that we must concentrate on improving standards instead of constantly crying "Woe" loudly on every aspect of education.
The truth is that there is very little sound evidence to suggest that standards across the country are falling. However, that does not necessarily mean that we must be complacent. It does not mean that we should overlook the fearful problem of some schools in inner and urban areas. We must bear in mind the burdens on school staffs. For example, I recently visited a school in Leicester which contained an 80 per cent. immigrant population and in that school there was an admirable educational effort with parents and children, and that effort was socially necessary.
In many areas—and we can rejoice in this situation—there has been a rise in standards. Let me instance the county of Surrey, which over a period of three years has screened the reading ability of children of 7-plus. There has been an improvement of approximately 3 per cent. over that period in the number of children needing basic help with reading. That is not a matter for complacency, but it is encouraging.
At secondary level it is extremely hard to find comparable statistics from which to make comparisons. Furthermore, there is one other aspect which has not yet been mentioned but which is relevant, and that is the fact that over a wide area children have increasingly been staying on at school. For example, in 1952 the figure of children in England and Wales who stayed on after the compulsory age of 15 amounted to 26 per cent. By 1972, with the raising of the school-leaving age, the figure had risen to 58 per cent.
In the same period the number of 16 and 17-year-olds staying on had tripled. This is relevant to the anxieties one hears from employers, and it means that the bright young lad who would have gone into banking or industry at the age of 15 in 1952 chose to stay on to take the GCE by the year 1962 and, by the year

1972, was going increasingly into further and higher education.
Therefore, we are not comparing like with like. What has happened is that there has been a rising standard of expectancy of parents in respect of their children, and that is a good thing and should be warmly encouraged. It means that much less able children or young people are tending to seek jobs which they would not have considered a few years ago.
Let me give an example involving an employer in a publishing business who complained about the standard of literacy of a particular young girl whose spelling left a good deal to be desired. That employer felt that that was conclusive evidence of falling school standards. I made some inquiries into the matter and discovered that the girl had an IQ of 80 and her level of attainment was very much higher than she would have achieved 10 years ago. Far from being discreditable, it reflected enormous credit on the girl and on her teachers. It is a good example of the way in which good teaching has helped such a child.
We are in danger of lowering the morale of the teaching force by an over-flood of criticism, although we must not fall into the trap of complacency. We must bear in mind that it is discouraging and disheartening for those involved in education to hear constant criticism.
Let me make three short points related to the raising of standards, and let me pick up the last words of the Secretary of State. I believe that we are apt to overlook the critical rôle of the inspectorate. Many years ago I was PPS to Lord Eccles and I remember the advice given to him by the inspectorate, which he often consulted.
In recent years there has been a considerable increase in the number of local authority inspectors, but it has coincided with a decrease in the number of HMIs. It is sometimes said that it took a Labour Government to reduce those numbers. Factually that is correct, and Labour is also blamed for the fact that formal inspections were largely abandoned, but what is forgotten is that both proposals emanated from a report of a Select Committee of this House in 1967–68.
I look with some scepticism at the great mass of reports that come from


Select Committees, most of which are not debated and some of which are poorly researched. I must draw upon my own experience. Before I went to the Department in 1970 I had not realised how that report had affected the morale of Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
When history comes to be written, and when we can talk about these things more freely, the actions that were taken by the present Leader of the Opposition in seeking to rebuild the confidence of the inspectorate will be regarded as one of the most significant contributions that the right hon. Lady made during her long tenure at that Department. But the fact is that numbers have fallen and there has been a considerable decrease in the inspectorate, and I commend that matter to the attention of the Secretary of State.
The recent booklet entitled "Ten Good Schools" came out, among other things, with a result that all of us who are interested in education—and that means all of us here today— would have been able to state a long time since. It was that a crucial rôle in the school is played by the head. That rôle is not important just to the children. I was recently told by the headmistress of a school in a difficult East London area that she spent 50 per cent. of her time with the staff, particularly young staff in their difficult early stage.
Is it not time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, that we looked at the tenure of appointment of heads? I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) —if he will allow me to put it in this way—flew a kite in this respect during a previous Parliament. What interested me was that there was far less hostility to the idea of a restriction on the tenure of a head than I had expected.
Of course there was some hostility. One cannot expect that such a proposal could be put forward without opposition. But I am sure that this is one of the good things that we ought to lift from the independent sector where a man or woman is appointed for a term of years, with terms of compensation, but not necessarily for the whole of his or her professional life.
The Secretary of State was courageous when she referred to the teachers who, as she put it, "in the golden years of expansion"—and she really meant the golden Tory years of expansion —went into the teaching profession with no great inclination or talent for teaching. We have to solve this problem, but it must be done through careful consultation with the unions and with an appeal procedure that would take away from it the sting of witch-hunt. An intelligent and able young teacher who is a nuisance to the head should not be a subject of the procedure. Such teachers are often valuable persons to have on the staff. There must be a proper and adequate system of compensation. The tragedy is that it is because of those people that the Secretary of State identified as being in the profession, that the young, trained teachers of today—many of them are of a very high standard—cannot get teaching posts.
I hope that all the points that I have made have been a constructive contribution to the debate which has—until I started to speak—been of an exceptionally high standard.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Giles Radice: I shall take up the points that were made by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) in his extremely well-informed and well-argued speech as I go along. But I should like to start by apologising to the House for intervening on a subject on which I have not previously spoken and on which I am no expert. If there is a case for my speaking, it is that I am a parent of five children—not all my own work— all of whom have been to one London primary school and who are in four London comprehensive schools. I should like to make a few observations as a parent, as an ex-school governor and as a Member of Parliament whose constituency has recently moved from a selective to a comprehensive system.
I should like to deal with the argument about falling standards. The Secretary of State has shown conclusively that general standards are not falling and that, if anything, they are rising. I am glad that the Opposition spokesman admitted that in his speech.


In any case, we are not really comparing like with like. After all, over the past 30 years the school leaving age has been raised twice and the school population has increased by 30 per cent. So we cannot compare the achievements of the old system—with the 11-plus examination and the selective system, which devoted more to the excellence of a minority than to the majority, and which, as the Secretary of State has shown, is mainly responsible for the illiteracy in our adult population—with today's emerging system, which is rightly concerned with the excellence of all our people.
I want to deal with the argument that one often hears—though I am glad to say that we have not heard it much this afternoon—that comprehensive reorganisation is largely to blame for all that is wrong with the school system. Any organisational structure must of necessity reflect the wider society. For obvious reasons it is easier to teach in a school in the country or in the suburbs than in a school in the inner city with all its problems, whether the school is a grammar, secondary modern or comprehensive.
Comprehensive schools are not to blame for the difficulties of teaching in the inner city areas nor for the changes in attitudes towards authority in our society. The changeover to comprehensive education cannot be blamed for the problems that have arisen from teaching and teaching methods. Primary schools are just as involved in the current debate and they have not been reorganised at all. The truth is that the changeover to comprehensive secondary education was essential.
The previous system was unjust, socially divisive and inflexible. The establishment of comprehensive secondary education has enabled us to concentrate as never before—and as we are now doing—on the essential question about how we should achieve equality of opportunity for all by raising the standards of all our children. That is the central point.
On that question I was struck by the conclusion of the recent survey carried out by the inspectorate on 10 successful schools. That conclusion was:
The strengths derive above all from the professional skills of the head and staff in creating a well-ordered environment in which learning can flourish.

That is absolutely right and that is a conclusion that I have drawn from my own experience. It is the teachers who count and who, with the assistance of the inspectorate, will improve the quality of teaching.
What can we do as politicians to contribute to the debate for which the Prime Minister called last year and which the Secretary of State is so ably leading? I want to make several short points. Teachers must avoid becoming slaves to teaching fashions. Any parent who has children in a comprehensive school recognises the wide range of ability that exists in such a school. That parent also recognises the need to develop everybody's skills in the school.
There must be a place, perhaps a large place, for mixed ability teaching, but it should not be carried further than the ability of the teachers concerned. Otherwise there is a danger of an over-reliance on mechanical aids and such things as work sheets, which can lead to inefficient teaching and that would be to the detriment of all pupils, whether more or less able.
We have heard a great deal recently about discipline and there is a critical rôle here for the heads. While a head must not intervene unnecessarily, a staff is only as strong as the backing it gets from a head.
While it is true that parents can be excessively interventionist, they have a lot to contribute to the running of our educational system and there is a strong case for having more parents on the governing bodies of schools.
I have been struck by the comparative indifference displayed by at least some of our schools to the needs of industry. There are no instant solutions to this problem, but I was impressed by the suggestions in the DES discussion document and they must be considered carefully.
The subdued speech of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) strengthened my conviction that the Government, who have carried through the great comprehensive revolution in secondary education, are very much on the right lines in their strategy for raising educational standards.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that there will be several debates


in the House during the wider debate on education, but we must be brief tonight if all hon. Members are to have a chance to speak.
Priority in achieving standards in education must go to the provision of teachers, good teachers and a good ratio of teachers to pupils. Teachers are more important than buildings—I recognise this will involve difficult decisions at times—and often more important than equipment and ancillary services.
We have pulled teachers out of the classroom to an extraordinary extent in recent years. The Burnham Committee has a lot to answer for because of the extent to which negotiations within it have led to the creation of allowances for other kinds of responsibility which may have a value but which are secondary to teaching itself. The teachers who want to provide the best for their families are drawn out of the classrooms to get allowances for becoming advisers, year tutors or taking other non-classroom responsibilities which, in the past, we somehow managed to accommodate within the system. That temptation to move teachers out of the classroom must be resisted, and priority must be given to front-line teaching in the classroom, in contact with the children.
I can think of no better way to strengthen the pressure for standards in schools than the maximum parental involvement. I agree here with what was said by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice). The trouble that blew up over the William Tyndale School was only resolved through the determination of parents not to send their children there because they were not satisfied with the standards available. Involving parents from an early stage could bring benefits in other schools, because when things are going wrong they could apply pressure from their own deep motivation to ensure that standards are maintained. They would have a vested interest in doing so, and if they were given the opportunities within the system they would take them.
There are some warnings that I wish to give. Among the chief curses of the education world are fads and new fashions. There have always been those in education who, like the Athenians,

could not resist "some new thing". Adherence to fashions has been one of the things which have helped to undermine basic standards. We began to believe that children should not be doing their multiplication tables, that there should be no streaming in schools and that the initial teaching alphabet would enable children to read more quickly. Even assessment itself was thought to be unfashionable.
We have learned now that we were wrong on some of those things, but we should be doing a disservice to education if we were to allow another swing of fashion to destroy the good work that is being done in—for example, in developing initiative and creative work among whole categories of children who, in earlier years, had no creative opportunities. We must not swing the other way and have another turn of fashion to deny opportunities to children who did not previously have them.
This is, perhaps, an uncomfortable place to make my second warning, but if politicians try to make the education debate a partisan affair—which they have conspicuously not tried to do today—whatever good it may do them, it will not do our education system any good. It would be absurd to claim that the party in power at any particular time can or should determine classroom trends or overall teaching methods and styles. The trends of educational opinion go far wider than political parties, extend beyond the tenure of office of any Government and also go beyond only this country.
An article in a recent edition of The Christian Science Monitor, which is an American publication, said:
They came with their sleeping bags and sack lunches, bundled up and prepared to spend the cold night waiting for the school doors to open the next morning.
The several hundred parents who gathered outside the Diablo Vista Elementary School here, late last month were determined to enroll their children in a new "back-to-basics" education program their school district had recently adopted.
They are part of a movement in public schools across the United States, a response to declining scores on standardized tests and what is perceived by many as the failure (and sometimes high cost) of innovative programs to meet basic educational needs.
The same arguments are going on all over the place. The same things are


occurring in other countries, and we politicians should not suppose that we have some ideal answer. We must beware of pushing arguments simply to suit our own political interest.
My final warning is to those who believe, as I do in many ways, that if we are not careful the result of this debate could be to stifle education and simply to turn out children programmed to meet the needs of our present society and never to question the assumptions on which it is based. That is a danger. Education can never have the needs of industry as its sole purpose, but my warning to myself, as well as to others who have that fear, is that those who believe that education must have wider horizons must remember that we have no right to deprive children of the basic equipment which they need to live and prosper in the society in which now we live.
If we do that, whatever choices we can make, they can make none. They cannot choose whether to prosper in society, to question society's values or to opt out and to do other things. Without the basic equipment they can make no choices. We have an obligation to our children to see that they can make these choices and that we do not make them for them.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: This important and far too brief debate is being listened to by the British people. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) made a moderate speech, and, although I did not expect to, I agreed with much of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said.
Despite this, we must remember that we are discussing standards in education against the background of an onslaught on education which, although it comes from outside this House, is nevertheless a reality. Even our cosy existence must be ruffled at times by what appears in the media. We are having this debate against the background of Draconian cuts in education expenditure, which the Conservative Party would make even worse, whatever nonsense they talk now.
We also face massive teacher unemployment, with 20,000 teachers out of work and young people coming out of teacher-training colleges and meeting other young teachers who have been un-

employed for the past two years. It is nonsense to talk about improving standards in education when all these young people, who should be in the classrooms, are unemployed, and when a great deal more money should be spent on education.
Against that background McCarthyism in education has flourished. Statements have been made by hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) about wishing to go back to when the school leaving age was 14. That attitude was recently mirrored in Sheffield. I hope that that attitude will suffer the same fate as McCarthyism in a different context in the United States.
It is not possible to discuss education without discussing resources. At conferences throughout the country teachers complain that the subject of resources is not one of the four main subjects discussed. We must welcome any attempt to prompt informed and constructive discussion about the aims and content of education and about the work and problems of schools and other educational establishments. This is a continuing process. We have heard some enlightened speeches today. Occasionally Opposition Members also make enlightened speeches, but they usually suffer for it and are removed to the Back Benches.
Education is not a commodity to be poured into a jug in precisely measurable quantities. Learning is not a simple facility in the exercise of mechanical, repetitive techniques. It is far more subtle if we apply it to growing people in a changing world. There is so simplistic approach to the subtlety of educational problems in a rapidly changing society. Parents, teachers, children and the general public are moving into the orbit of education in a way that we have not seen before. Hon Members are also taking a greater interest. Contrary to what many believe, education is dynamic, not static.
Why are we discussing it now? Why is there such an increase in the tempo of discussions about education? Why is there this increased interest? It is because education is being democratised. Democratisation of education is going ahead by leaps and bounds and the elitists are against it. Many of them have been forced in speeches in the House to say


that they agree with comprehensive education, although many hon. Members sat for 80 or so hours in Committee hearing endless speeches of a backward and backwoodsman nature directed against the whole idea of comprehensive education. We seem to have won that battle, because Opposition hon. Members now either agree with comprehensive education or pretend to agree with it.
Because of the further democratisation of education the interest of Opposition hon. Members and their kept Press has been directed to the detriment of education, against teachers who are conducting reasonable and sensible experiments in order to advance the cause of education. They have been wondering whether their methods are totally wrong.
I was pleased to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) because I know Berwick well and I know some enlightened head teachers in that area. The hon. Member said that he did not want to throw the baby out with the bath water and that we should recognise and keep some of the good methods of the past. I welcome that.
We have taken a major step away from elitism and there has been a major invasion of wealth and privilege in education. The fight is on a grand scale, but the hon. Member for Chelmsford extolled private and grammar school education as if we should aim for more of it. I see Opposition hon. Members nodding their heads and I know that that is what they want. Yet,, most people want their children to be educated in the State system. A further attack is developing in education; it is implicitly an attack on the Labour Government.
The Act to provide comprehensive education is one of the most far-reaching since the initial education Acts. It will mean that more children will have a good education.
I was pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend had to say, after the so-called Yellow Book, which could be described as a jaundiced approach to education. Many teachers were flung into confusion because they thought that she believed that standards were going down. The speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by my right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State in the North of England made many people deeply worried and made the teachers' unions wonder whether the Department was on a collision course with the teaching profession. My right hon. Friend's speech today will have dissipated much of that feeling. She said many things that I did not expect her to say and revealed a change of approach—shades and nuances of approach—about the thinking of the Establishment.
The 1944 Act had many fine aspects, but it was an elitist Act. Many people glorified it and there was no struggle between the two sides at the time. Everyone agreed with it. That was because it enshrined selection, which is so dear to the heart of the Opposition. At that time Labour Members did not understand what a menace the 11-plus was. In 1944 educationists in general, even on my side, did not understand the menace of the 11-plus and selection. Our latest Act has disenshrined selection. For that reason the Opposition fought that long, endless struggle of 80 or so hours. They talked nonsense most of the time in an attempt to get rid of the measure.
Against that background the Black Paper mentality developed. I know that I am being harsh, but I intend to be. We all agreed that the onslaught on education, prompted by the Black Paper mentality of the Conservative Party, unleashed on education an attack that rocked it. But, the speech this afternoon by my right hon. Friend recognised the need to struggle back to good methods. Democratisation is well under way.
The Inspectorate that issued the Yellow Book was implicitly criticising itself. If the situation had gone as far back as it said, why did it not say so before? By saying what it did it gave power to every backwoodsman in the education world. That is why teachers throughout the country were deeply worried. I hope that the Press will take note of what my right hon. Friend and other of my hon. Friends say today. I hope that we shall see it in all the newspapers tomorrow, as we have seen condemnation in the past.
Standards of education, far from declining, have actually risen. At the risk of boring some hon. Members—I know that it will bore them—I shall read one or


two of the things said recently in a document by the National Union of Teachers:
From 1965 to 1975, the efforts and commitment of the teachers allied to the aspirations and endeavours of both pupils and parents led to an explosion of educational attainment. Over the next 10 years, the numbers attending university grew from 185,000 in 1965 to 263,000 in 1975.
The document goes on to give examination results which are massively higher than anything that we have witnessed previously.
I hope that that will be published tomorrow, as my right hon. Friend put it, so that everyone, most of all those of the Black Paper mentality on the Opposition Benches, who have pushed against this so hard, will see tomorrow in the Press that there has been a change.
As regards the public expenditure cuts, the talk about increasing education while maintaining the cuts is nonsense. Of course there are many problems. Teachers and pupils would be the last people to say otherwise. There are bad hospitals, had factories, bad Members of Parliament, bad workmen, bad councils, bad Governments and bad Ministers. Does anyone think that in an expanding educational establishment, with the massive expansion that it has undergone over the last few years, there will not be a school here and there that does not suffer from the terrible problems arising from the background that it represents? Of course there are problems. However, to generalise about them as though they were the whole system is sheer wickedness and irresponsibility, because all of us know that things are getting better. I knew that the laughter from some Conservative Members would come, because I am talking about reality, and they do not like that.
As my right hon. Friend has said so many things that I welcome— Conservative Members will enjoy this—I shall cut short my speech. I conclude by saying that things have improved. They are getting better. Teachers, parents, children and the rest of us together are seeing to that. I wish that my right hon. Friend would give us more resources for education. I hope that, in the discussions up and down the country, resources in education will be allied to the other four topics to be discussed.

6.23 p.m.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Since I have been a Member of Parliament, there has not been in this House an education debate in which I have pot spoken immediately after the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). Today, I do not want to follow that rhetoric without substance, which is almost the hallmark of his speeches. I want to be brief and, although I shall be critical at the start, to end on a constructive note.
I take as the theme of my opening criticism the remark of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) when he urged his own side as well as everyone else not to get bogged down in making assessments only on what is quantifiable and to look instead at matters in qualitative terms. I think that he used the word "subjective". Yet his own Secretary of State then got caught by doing precisely that. When it suits Labour Members to use figures, they use them. If Opposition Members have figures to cite to show something else, Labour Members say that they are irrelevant and that we should think qualitatively or subjectively. That is exactly my point. It is to urge upon the Secretary of State and Ministers not to take some of the figures that they cite just at face value.
Certainly vice chancellors and others have been concerned over the past few years about the quality of people coming through the system. Engineering professors are concerned about the capacity of young people coming into their departments to manipulate figures. The Coventry Employers Association, which I visited only recently, has much interesting material on which it has been working in its area, showing how concerned employers are about the capacity of apprentices, both to express themselves in writing and to do simple arithmetical calculations.
This is a very serious matter. This is the subjective view, whatever the figures show. Indeed, it leads me to question whether there has not been within the marking system some sort of grade slippage, as the Americans call it. Some of us have seen the Wilmott Report, since I released it to the Press, which indicates that in GCE and CSE, in key areas, over the years there has been some grade slippage. It is a perfectly natural thing


to expect, but it means that we must be careful about using figures that might indicate that people are getting better when in reality they are not good at coping with the tasks for which they are being employed. They are not doing as well as people have done in the past.
That leads me to one particular area—mathematics. Both sides of the House are agreed on how important this subject is. The Secretary of State has said that crash programmes are being launched. I was totally disappointed and disillusioned by her remark to me in reply to a Question on Tuesday, when yet again nothing concrete was forthcoming about maths. It was announced back in December that we have only 10 pilot projects to investigate the possibility of retraining courses in craft and design, but nothing yet in maths. If we go back a whole year, to December 1975, the then Secretary of State highlighted the importance of maths and talked about mathematical illiteracy and how much we needed a crash programme. However, what has been happening? It is over two and a half years since we started reorganising teacher training, and we could have mopped up some of the places by launching retraining programmes in these specialist areas, but nothing has been set up.
Maths is vital not merely in the sense of teachers coming through into the schools in greater numbers than hitherto. It really affects the attitudes of young people to all the other courses into which we are trying to encourage them to enter —science and technological subjects and engineering. If young people are not happy with maths they are unlikely to enter into science and technological subjects in general. Therefore, the problem goes all the way down to the primary schools. Unless we get at that level teachers who have enthusiasm for teaching maths and who can convey that to the pupil all the way through into the secondary schools young people will not feel happy about going into technological subjects. Maths is an absolutely fundamental and crucial area of teaching.
When one also considers what the Secretary of State has admitted about a falling off in sixth-form activity in both maths and languages—many of us have been highlighting the problem regarding the minority languages for a long time—

it seems to me that the line that the Opposition very responsibly put forward —I say that to the hon. Member for Hillsborough—in all those months during the Committee on the Education Bill is really a line that should be examined more closely. The suggestion has been that, particularly in our urban areas where there are problems of ghetto schools which have no academic stimulus or challenge, we should set up some sort of—for want of a better phrase— "magnet" classes: specialised, high-powered classes for surrounding schools in maths and languages so that people who have talent can be provided for. The search for talent is vital, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) highlighted in relation to the Soviet Union. We need to search for talent and to have "magnet" schools into which talented people can be drawn.
Following on the need to draw out talent, it seems to me that talent requires goals to be set, and that the maximum use should be made for them in schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) referred to the assessment at 7-plus in his county for reading, and told us how there had been a marked improvement over the time that the test had been taking place. That leads me to the conclusion that this has been one of the failings that has emerged in the system since we scrapped the 11-plus. I am not advocating the 11-plus as a streaming system for different routes, but what it did was to set targets for teachers to aim at. That has now been admitted by the National Foundation for Educational Research. That is why that foundation is studying an alternative system of monitoring and assessing, so that the teacher has something for which to aim. Then improved standards are achieved in the schools. Set targets and get the pupils up to that level. Without anything, the whole thing is inclined to drift.
I end by suggesting, on a constructive note, a new sort of incentive that the Secretary of State could launch if she is really serious about drawing more young people, and more of the best people, into engineering and technological courses. A few weeks ago the right hon. Lady suggested that it would encourage young people to go into engineering courses if


the regulations were changed so that industrial scholarships up to £500 would not affect grants. That is not much incentive at all. It is an indirect incentive at best. At the same time, as firms will be paying the £500, they are now having to pay substantially increased fees for their people to be released into engineering courses.
We need to be much more positive and create many more incentives. The Secretary of State should consider a national industrial scholarship scheme. We do not want to switch large numbers of people from the arts in general into the sciences in general. That would not necessarily do very much. What we need is to have those people with the best brains moving into the key areas of applied science and technology.
We need more selectivity and discrimination in the sort of schemes that we set up, something which does not distort the delicate balance between the supply of students and the provision of courses.
I suggest the provision of about 100 to 150 scholarships in a highly prestigious scheme. The scholarships would pay between £500 and £600, making a total cost of about £500,000. Spending this relatively small amount of money on an industrial scholarship scheme might produce a disproportionate impact. It would not only attract the cream into key areas, such as production engineering, but would boost the status of such courses and engineering in general. A momentum might be established.
Such a scheme, which some professors of engineering support, could be tried for an experimental period of three or four years. If it did not succeed in attracting more talent or having a wider effect, it could then be scrapped. We do not want empire building, but it is worth trying, particularly in the context of the terms of reference set by the Prime Minister for the great debate on education. It would not involve much in the way of resources.
Obviously, resources are vital, but it seems tragic, particularly when a Labour Government are in charge, to look back over the years and realise that since 1959 there has never been a time when the average annual rate of growth in spending on education was lower than it is

now, and as it will be for the rest of the decade. That is not only tragic in the sense of what is possible in schools, but it forecloses some of the exciting options that many of us would like to see.
The Secretary of State has told us how vital it is to get the schools right because children could never be educated again, but I want to see a system where it is possible for people to be educated again.
One of the problems about the current great education debate is that it is being conducted with such a narrow focus on schools. There is a Socialist notion that schools are social engineering instruments. We shall never have perfect schools. They will never be totally free of discrimination and hardship. They will never cease to reflect the backgrounds from which pupils come. It is vital to have a system in which young people who have started work and are now better motivated have a second chance to retrain, to make up for what they missed in their neighbourhood ghetto comprehensive. When they realise the importance of education, and the need for qualifications, they should be able to attend topping-up or work-related courses. We should try to be more flexible in the use of resources, particularly for young people of the immediate post-school years, aged between 16 and 20, and in other further education sectors, to give them a second chance.
The adult literacy programme, for example, has had enormous success for peanuts—at a cost of only £1 million a year. With such a stimulus in the system all sorts of exciting schemes have resulted. People who missed out in their 11 or 12 years at school are now, because they have extra motivation, learning successfully. For a small amount of money it is possible to generate creative activity and get good results. We should take this lesson to heart. By applying it throughout the system we could, even with limited resources, do much more than we are doing at the present.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I was most encouraged by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am sorry that I praise her in her absence, but I am sure that the message will be carried to her. When I came to the House this afternoon I was


fearful because of the views that had been expressed, or we thought had been expressed, in recent times by members of our party, so it is nice to be able to praise my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) seemed to abandon to some extent his party's battle cry in recent months that standards are falling. I had been afraid that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had fallen for the bait that had been put out for them and that they, too, would say that standards had been falling. I cannot accept that there has been a decline in standards, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proved conclusively with some of the figures which she quoted that I am right. If I repeat some of her figures it is only to emphasise my point.
Anyone who claims that standards have been dropping must justify that claim. I have been trying to discover on what basis the claim might be justified. All that I could find was some examination results. Here I shall give two figures which my right hon. Friend did not mention. One which is significant is the increase in the number of boys and girls leaving school with five or more O-levels. In 1963–64 the percentage of school leavers with five or more O-levels was 16·6. By 1973–74 this had grown to 23 per cent. In 1963–64, 5·1 per cent. of school leavers left with three A-levels. By 1973–74 this had risen to 7·9 per cent. These are typical of the examination results over the past decade, and, if we can judge by examination results, standards have certainly risen.
I do not like to judge educational standards by examination results. The criticisms that have been made are based on subjective judgments which I do not accept. I think that the quality of education has broadened and improved to such an extent in recent years that it is incomparably better now than in previous years.
We have concentrated too much attention on examination results. Of course we need assessment, but there are other ways of assessing people than by examinations.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford spoke against the proposals for a common examination, as I expected him to, because he is in favour of selectivity and selection. Having established the Cer-

tificate of Secondary Education, with all the innovations which that produced in assessment, the time has come to move forward. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to go down the road of the Conservative Party. I was glad that in rejecting that approach she said that she had an open mind and was hoping to be convinced on the question of a common examination. I suspect that the Schools Council is in danger as a result of its advocacy of this proposal for a common examination, but I am encouraged by what I have heard this afternoon. What we need more than a common examination is a common certificate. I hope that we can produce a common certificate for and assessment of every child leaving school.
I find it difficult to accept that so many children leave school without even a piece of paper to show that they have been there, nothing to show for all the work that they have done. Every child should have a certificate, a report on what he or she did at school. I am not saying that it should be on the present lines. We must think anew on the subject.
There has been a great deal of talk about numeracy and literacy. I wish that we could have more definition of those words. I fear that the campaign on educational standards has been sparked off by people who take a very narrow view of education.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stressed the needs of industry. I was frightened that industry would start dictating the curriculum and the methods to be employed in schools. I am more encouraged by the realistic view that is being taken today. We must be responsive to the needs of industry, and to the needs of the users of mathematics especially. As a former mathematics teacher, I am conscious of that need. But very often industry does not know what it wants in the teaching of mathematics.
Parents used to come to see us at school, especially when we changed over to what used to be called modern mathematics, saying that they could not help their kids with their homework. What they could not understand, they did not like. The same goes for industry; because it does not understand training in mathematics today, it does not like it. We are not producing people with certain mechanical skills. We are trying to


produce people who can think originally —and that, after all, is what mathematics is about.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Joint Matriculation Board has said that young people can use pocket calculators in examinations. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that trend? Are children to lose the opportunity of understanding how arithmetic and mathematics really work?

Mr. Roderick: Understanding is needed in using calculators. If their use enables one to do mechanical processes quickly, they are to be encouraged, but I would not encourage them unless all the children were able to use them. I would not give some an advantage over others. After all, all children are provided with log tables for examinations, and the use of calculators could be in the same way. I would not like to see some schools using them and others not. That would mean that types of examination would have to vary. One would have to have different questions depending on whether this simple aid was being used. Does the hon. Gentleman want to return to the old kind of test in which we slaved away for weeks working out HCFs and LCMs in their thousands? What purpose was there in that? What industry ever used any of that work and the training that was put into it?
I am disturbed by a report published by the Royal Society that 58 per cent. of the entrants to colleges of education in 1974 had O-level mathematics. That is ominous and we must do something radical about it. Too often, when students leave college and obtain posts in primary schools, the attitude will be "Anyone can teach maths", so teachers not qualified to do so will be given the job, and that is dangerous. We should have specialists in each primary school capable of ensuring that mathematics are capable of ensuring that mathematics standards are maintained.
We should also be taking advantage of the present situation in colleges of education. We are seeing a reduction in numbers due to the falling birth rate, but we should use the opportunity to bring about a massive increase in in-service training to make up for the loss of teachers who have gone through the

system without mathematics training. We could use the period to get ahead with an all-graduate profession. We could extend the move towards every teacher having a B.Ed. degree.
I do not want to see us reducing the number of teachers being trained while there are complaints about standards of literacy. We can improve standards of literacy only if we massively increase the number of teachers employed in primary schools so that every child can be heard in reading far more often by his teacher. Only thus can we improve reading standards.
I want to be brief because of the shortage of time, so I will close with a quotation from the departmental document "Education—the Great Debate". It states:
The curriculum has been marked in recent years by a greater emphasis on an appreciation of music and arts.
I believe that that is largely because of the virtual disappearance of the 11-plus, and I hope that we will not reverse the trend.

6.45 p.m.

Dr. Rhodes Boyson: This debate is being held because of massive concern about educational standards. That concern has been expressed by parents, in our constituencies, in the Press—much as the Press is disliked intensely by some Labour Members—and by many of the teachers' unions. Only 10 days ago the National Association of Schoolmasters, the second largest teachers' union, produced a report showing that 73 per cent. of its members believed that standards have declined.
The Secretary of State today produces statistics showing an improvement. My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) referred to a decline. The right hon. Lady turned to the Bullock Report. But we can all take statements out of reports which prove different things. The Bullock Report states:
From the evidence available there seems to be a 'prima facie' case for saying that children of 7 are not as advanced as formerly in those aspects".
I do not know what reading ability cannot be measured by tests.
I do not want to go on with statistics. The debate is being held because standards are static or have declined in many


classes. I suggest that there has been a massive decline. That is why the Labour Party is having its great debate. The Prime Minister realised that the Labour Party was losing votes because of its education policy, and he made his Ruskin College speech. There were undoubtedly not only educational reasons but political reasons for the launching of the great debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) referred to the things we are concerned about—literacy, numeracy, teacher training, the standards of teacher intake and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) referred to the question of teacher contracts. We shall have to consider teacher contracts not only for heads but for assistants as well, instead of allowing lifetime tenure, to cover cases where those concerned have ceased to fulfil the job that they were originally doing. We are concerned also that the GCE and the CSE, for example, should not be combined so that they are meaningless. They must have meaning. That is why we are sceptical of the suggestions of the Schools Council.
We welcome the fact that there is more teacher stability. The right hon. Lady herself made this point. There is less wastage, there is easier recruitment. It is ironic that these two factors have arisen because of the Government's policy of unemployment. People dare not leave their jobs in case they cannot get work elsewhere. The Government have unintentionally brought about greater teacher stability, which is surely one of the biggest factors in improving the standards of education.
We are concerned that there should be no secret gardens in education that we cannot explore. Some of us, however, suspect that there are certain secret gardens that we cannot touch becuse they are part of the dogma of the Labour Party—for example, the question of whether comprehensive schools are really working in the cities. The figures for Manchester are very different from those for Oxfordshire. Part of the big debate is surely whether comprehensive schools work in the big inner cities. Are Manchester and London typical? Or can we have the great debate only as long as we

do not touch the Labour Party's arks of the covenant or dogmas?
Reference has been made to St. Marylebone and Mary Datchelor schools. I was interested to hear that the right hon. Lady knows about them. At a time when there is growing lack of faith in many of the big schools in central London, to close these two schools seems to be educational vandalism. Children from my constituency go to St. Marylebone Grammar School. There have been a lot of working-class children there, the sons of taxi-cab drivers, salesmen and shopkeepers, who have gone to university. There is by no means an elitist intake into the school. The Mary Datchelor School for Girls south of the river takes only 50 per cent. of its pupils from the professions; the remainder are working-class children. That school has a high record of sending girls to university. Out of an intake of 90, 48 girls went to university in 1976. Seven girls have already won places in 1977 at Oxbridge in degree subjects in science, mathematics, German, medicine, history and Oriental studies. If such a school were closed, working-class children would be deprived of the opportunity to increase their chances of higher education. It is interesting to note how many Labour Members sent their children to schools which the Government are now destroying.
I remember a speech made by the Secretary of State in her previous incarnation at the Education Department—I hope I am right, but I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong—when she was speaking in 1968 to the European Ministers of Education. The figures of the percentage of university intake from different social classes was being discussed. When the figures were mentioned for the British universities, the right hon. Lady claimed that the percentage of working-class children entering them was high. I think that it was about 27 per cent., the highest in Europe. It will be interesting to see what percentage of working-class children entering universities here will be in 10 years' time. There cannot be a debate on comprehensive schools until all their results are brought out, or there will be subjective judgments on both sides of the Chamber. Perhaps the Secretary of State has it in mind that there will be separate debates when the


figures are brought out and there is no secrecy. I hope that that is the case.
I move now to the question of sixth-form colleges. In some areas comprehensive schools have succeeded and in some areas they have not succeeded because they had great problems. We were once told that 2,000 comprehensive schools were unnecessary because comprehensives were so successful that six- and eight-stream entry schools would provide sufficient numbers for academic courses in the sixth form. In my last school there were eight streams. Now we are told that such schools cannot provide a viable sixth form —and this has nothing to do with the fall in the birth rate. Six- and eight-stream entry schools cannot now provide the sixth-form academic numbers that are necessary.
Whatever else we do, we must do it slowly and it must be assessed in areas where it is being done. The risk is now in going overboard—I say this purposely because I hope that it will be denied immediately—for sixth-form colleges. We are told that there have been certain failures in the comprehensive school system that the sixth-form college may solve. Yet by this we may put the best teachers in sixth-form colleges and the not-so-well-qualified into the 11-to-16 schools. This would be dangerous because the 13- and 14-year-olds need the best instruction if they are to become scholars. If six- and eight-stream comprehensives cannot provide viable sixth-form academic courses, they will not be able to provide viable fifth- and sixth-form academic courses in physics and other subjects.
We need an assessment of what is going on in the present 70-odd sixth-form colleges before any encouragement is to be given or more are to be built. I think that the teaching profession, and the parents, are weary of educational reorganisation and they do not want another. When I was at Highbury School, a Labour alderman who is still there, who was one of my staff for 12 years, had gone through four reorganisations in London and within three years of the last one Highbury Grove was threatened with becoming a sixth-form college. The alderman said "Here we are again." We must have stability for staff and parents. I said long ago before we finished com-

prehensive reorganisation that we would start another. I hope that this move to sixth-form colleges is not another. I hope that it is not the cloud on the horizon no bigger than a man's hand.
There have been indications that the Secretary of State and the Department are beginning to realise that we cannot have specialised courses in every school. We are promised that comprehensive schools would increase opportunities for older children, but they cannot. A grammar school with 750 children can offer more courses to academically-inclined children than a comprehensive school of the same size, by virtue of the academic numbers of children involved in it. Obviously there will be fewer specialised courses in the comprehensive school. Now we are told that each comprehensive school will be allowed to develop its own specialist course. They will have one each. This is something I have considered for a long time.
What happens, however, to the very gifted child if there is a separate specialised course in each school? Will the very bright child go by taxi from French at one school to take his classics at another and physics at another? As a distinguished headmaster wrote in The Times last week, there must be provision for the high flyer, otherwise our seed corn for advance and invention will be depleted.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State herself has admitted that the gifted child cannot be dealt with adequately in a comprehensive school.

Mr. Flannery: Nonsense.

Mr. Winterton: The Secretary of State has said publicly that gifted children cannot be catered for in comprehnsive schools. How does my hon. Friend believe that the gifted children can and should be treated by the Government?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I must correct the hon. Gentleman and repeat exactly what I said. I said that the exceptionally gifted child—I was talking about the genius or the near-genius—could not be adequately dealt with in either an ordinary grammar school or an ordinary comprehensive school. This is a problem of the education system. I believe that


to be so in the context that we are speaking about potential Nobel Prize-winners.

Dr. Boyson: We shall have to carry out a textual analysis of the statement of the Secretary of State. But I must press on.
I believe that 2 per cent. of children need special education because they are the gifted children, otherwise there will be problems both with their behaviour and with their academic development running at a lower speed than it should.
I turn now to the question of regional conferences. It seems to me that they will be conferences of the very "in" group which has been in charge of our staticness or decline in education. If a patient is ill and he wants a new medicine, he does not ask the same doctor who gave him the original medicine during his regressive illness to prescribe another. Those 200 of the most unrepresentative nominees from corporation organisations have been in charge of education for 10 or 15 years. They are now going to tell us why we have not done better in those years. The chalk-face teacher and the ordinary parent should be involved in control over our education. I have a letter from one parent who contacted the Department of Education and Science because he wanted to go to the conference. He was told that it was impossible to allow him to go. The conference is merely for an "in" group; no outside people may participate.

Mr. Mike Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Boyson: No; the hon. Gentleman has only just come in. He should have been here for more of the debate.
So we have a number of regional "in" groups. Bill Buckley, the editor of the National Review in the United States of America, once said that he would be governed more suitably by the first 200 names in the Boston telephone directory than the results of city elections. We could just as well get the first 200 names in the telephone directory and see what they thought about the future of education rather than ask the invited set-piece regional conferences what should be done. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr.

Beith) talks about the power of parents. They were the ones who brought the business at William Tyndale to light. Regional conferences without such ordinary parent and teacher representation are no more representative than a meeting of the Tribune Group chaired by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to discuss the honours system.
My final point is the question of voluntary choice of school, and it is one which has hardly been referred to today because we are discussing standards in schools. I do not believe that there will be high standards until parents have a choice of school. Parents will not support a school which they do not want their children to go to. The important thing is that we must somehow increase the possibility of parental choice of school so that people are involved not simply as parents and governors but because they have chosen the school. I hope that the Labour Party will move, as it has moved on some other issues, towards genuine voluntary choice of school. A voluntary choice has a potential advantage for schools when the time comes that with the falling birth-rate some schools have to close. The schools to close should not be decided by a bureaucratic education authority. They must be the schools to which parents do not want to send their children. They should be closed when the time comes.
Parental choice—I say this as a challenge—is a belief in the freedom of the individual as against the corporate government. Parental choice of schools is like owning a house or running a small business. They are part of a way of life which we on this side expect but which does not get great support from Labour Members.
To sum up, we are extremely concerned about standards in education. We have been saying that for years. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and others of my hon. Friends and I have for years been saying that something must be done about standards. We welcome the fact that there has been some conversion of the Government, although it has worried certain Labour Members.

Mr. Flannery: Mr. Flannery rose—

Dr. Boyson: I shall not give way. We welcome that there has been—

Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Boyson: No. The hon. Gentleman has already taken almost 20 minutes. The fact that the Secretary of State has moved towards standards has worried some Labour Members. We support the return to high standards in schools. We do not yet welcome the return of the prodigal son and daughter and kill the fatted calf. Until we see more than has been done so far, all we offer the Labour Government and the right hon. Lady is a Buxted chicken sandwich.

7.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): Most of this debate, though not perhaps the speech made by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), has been astonishing—in fact, almost breathtaking.
I particularly welcome the speech made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) speaking, as I understood it, on behalf of the Conservative Party. I do not think that anyone who sat through the debates on the Education Bill either in Committee or in this Chamber or who listened to Questions on education for the last year would have found either the hon. Gentleman's speech or the speeches of many of his hon. Friend's particularly familiar. The hon. Gentleman, realising the direction in which many Conservative Members have been leading him, has drawn back in the nick of time from the brink of disaster. His conversion is especially welcome because it is vital to the development as well as the survival of our education system. Nevertheless, I think that we are entitled to chide him a little for the damage done to our schools by himself and his hon. Friends while waiting for the light on the road to Damascus. It is clear that, whatever light the hon. Gentleman may have seen, his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North is still in darkness.
I hope, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), that the statements made by most contributors to the debate will receive the amount and kind of publicity that has been given to so many of the damaging and inaccurate statements

made by many Opposition Members in the past.
I am particularly glad that we have had the opportunity of having this debate, because it has given a much-needed chance for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to set the record straight with regard to what is happening about standards in education. The return to reality was evident throughout the debate.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) backed up his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford in agreeing with my right hon. Friend that standards in education are rising rather than falling. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Radice) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) were also constructive in their comments. So, indeed, was my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough. I was surprised that he was surprised that he agreed so much with my right hon. Friend. I should have thought that someone of his lengthy experience in education and politics would know that what one says can be misrepresented and that conclusions can be drawn which do not follow from the argument. I assure him that my right hon. Friend has not changed her mind or views. What she repeated today, which I am glad my hon. Friend found reassuring, was what she and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have been saying for a long time. If my hon. Friend has drawn any different conclusion, the blame must rest with the Press, not with us.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough that we do not intend to exclude the subject of resources from the regional conferences. It could not be excluded it lies at the root of many of our problems. But we are anxious to concentrate on the subjects which lie at the heart of the development of education, with which resources are concerned, rather than to centre too much of the debate solely on resources and whether we are able at present to give enough of them.
The speech by the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) was a return to the good old tradition of recent education debates. It was not a particularly constructive speech. It was both woolly


and misinformed. Among other things, the hon. Gentleman said that we do not like the Conservative Party quoting statistics. Then he complained that we quoted statistics. I had better set him right. What we dislike is not that the Conservative Party should quote statistics but that it should so often draw the wrong conclusions from them.
I recognise the hon. Gentleman's disappointment at the formidable case that my right hon. Friend was able to marshall in defence of her argument that standards, far from falling, are in fact rising. The hon. Gentleman said that the Wilmott Report was not available. Since it is not finished, that is hardly a matter for surprise. The hon. Gentleman also drew conclusions from it in its unfinished condition which are not borne out by what it says.
The most incredible statement that the hon. Gentleman managed to make was that we should be careful about using figures and that it would be preferable if we did not use figures. Then he went on to talk about the subjective judgment of industrialists, among others, regarding attainments in schools. The hon. Gentleman is said to be an educationist. It is astonishing that it does not strike him that, although he said that we needed to be careful about quoting statistics—a fact which I concede—hon. Members on both sides need to be even more careful about resting their judgment on totally unsupported assertions, whether from industrialists or from anybody else.

Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Lady consult her hon. Friend the Minister of State, who, shortly after I went to the Coventry Employers' Federation, also went there? Those people have done a great deal of detailed work with specially constructed tests for the apprentices going into factories in the Coventry area. All I was saying was that there was some disturbing information coming from those tests.

Miss Jackson: I have seen a report of the work of the Coventry industrialists. I apologise if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman by thinking that he was not quoting from such a report. However, I do not think that I can be blamed, since he said that subjective judgments differed from those put forward by my hon.

Friends. I assumed that he was principally talking about subjective judgments. However, my comment stands. It is worse to rest one's case on unsupported assertions than on statistics, however they may be argued about.
One thing about which I am very clear, even before the great debate begins, is that as a core objective in our educational system there is a need for an understanding of what evidence is, what it consists of and how it should be evaluated, since plainly the education system as it exists has failed to inculcate this faculty in many hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Ripon also urged us to adopt a national scholarship scheme. I am sure that he knows—if not, I mention it now—that this matter has been under discussion for some weeks and that we hope to make progress on it.
The hon. Member for Brent, North, like his hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, was infinitely more predictable and made the kind of speech to which we have of late become more accustomed. The hon. Gentleman said that he would not quote statistics. That did not come as a great shock, because he rarely quotes them. The hon. Gentleman always rests on assertions rather than on statistics. I suspect, perhaps unfairly, that he rarely quotes statistics because they so rarely support his arguments. If he will quote a few in future, we shall be able to judge better.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we were having the great debate. One of the reasons why we think that it is necessary to have the debate is that we have realised that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends and others outside the House have been successful in misleading far too many people. There is, therefore, a great need to set before them the facts about what is happening in schools so that they will know in future to whom they should listen.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I take up the point that the Secretary of State said that the hon. Lady would cover in her speech about parents? Does she support giving parents, especially the parents of primary age children, their reading age each year, and will she encourage some use of homework so that they can see what is happening inside the schools?

Miss Jackson: I am not sure about homework. I do not suggest that parents are not entitled to and should not have the maximum information about their children's progress. Whether that is best provided by a series of yearly tests is another matter. Whatever information is available, and whatever the means by which it is acquired, as much of it as possible should be made available to parents. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. The hon. Gentleman seems to have been misled into thinking that we differ in our views on the subject of parental rights and interests.
The hon. Member for Brent, North, asked me to comment on the closure of two schools in London. My right hon. Friend has already dealt with the closure of St. Marylebone, pointing out that it is a school in old buildings and in an area of declining need. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise us in particular for the closure of the Mary Datchelor School, I must say to him that it is not we who have brought about that closure but the school's governing body, and it is to that body that he should address his strictures.
It is also surprising that the hon. Gentleman made those comments. If he and his hon. Friends really care about keeping schools of this kind in the academic system, if they really care about their academic records and about their opportunity being made available, they should be talking about how we make that increasingly available to more children, and not about keeping it for one small sector.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would "go overboard" on sixth form colleges. No, we do not intend to go overboard on any subject in education. We intend to state the facts so far as they are available and try to reach a reasoned judgment on them. I recommend that course to the hon. Member.
The hon. Gentleman also called for a stop to further reorganisation in our school system in the context of sixth-form colleges. Do I understand from this that he has now changed his mind about the recommendation I understood him to make in the past about our returning to a selective system? If so, that conversion is equally welcome.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to to our conferences and said that one

did not go back to the same doctor to be represcribed the same medicine. On the evidence of his speeches on education since I have been in this House, the hon. Member is the kind of doctor who would treat a patient not only before he knew what the disease was but before he knew that a disease existed in the first place. That is not a course that we propose to adopt.
To return to the subject of standards, we accept that the evidence is insufficient. We should like there to be more evidence. We should like it to be more easily correlated, one piece of evidence with another. We accept that what evidence there is shows that standards have risen. That is why we are giving high priority to collecting and properly evaluating more and more valuable evidence about what is really happening in our schools, so that we can see where the problem areas lie and how they can best be solved.
We are principally concerned on this side about standards. As my right hon. Friend said, we are aware that in our society we are making more and more demands for higher and higher standards from the children. Where, to judge from their comments, it appears we differ from at least some hon. Members opposite, is that we firmly believe that we can have every confidence in the teaching profession as a whole to respond to these further demands that we are making, on them as on the children, and that we have a duty as much to the children, who after all are the individuals being criticised, as to the teachers to do everything possible to support them in the tremendous effort that we are demanding from them.
We do not seek to disguise problems where they arise, but we feel that we have a duty not only to support the system but to avoid wild, damaging and ill-justified attacks which are based on misunderstanding or on a blatant search for political advantage at whatever cost to the children of this country.
That is a lesson that the hon. Member for Chelmsford has clearly learned, and I congratulate him. We all agree that education should be a lifetime process. It is good to see that some hon. Members opposite at least have been re-educated. I hope—I am sure that all my


hon. Friends hope—that the hon. Member for Chelmsford will have as much success in re-educating his hon. Friends, both here and in local authorities, in the realities of education as we hope and believe the teachers will have in obtaining from their pupils the increased standards that we should all like to see.
There are still many issues on which we disagree as to the best way of improving the quality of education for all—not least on whether we can have a truly

comprehensive system if, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford suggested, grammar schools are to be retained. But it is very good to see that we can once again have a constructive debate on this subject. I am sure that it is for the good of all involved in the education service.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes, 249. Noes 281.

Division No. 77.]
AYES
[7.15 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fell, Anthony
Knight, Mrs Jill


Aitken, Jonathan
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Knox, David


Alison, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Arnold, Tom
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lawrence, Ivan


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawson, Nigel


Awdry, Daniel
Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Baker, Kenneth
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bell, Ronald
Fox, Marcus
Lloyd, Ian


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Loveridge, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fry, Peter
Luce, Richard


Benyon, W.
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McCrindle, Robert


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macfarlane, Neil


Biggs-Davison, John
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
MacGregor, John


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Body, Richard
Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Bottomley, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Madel, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Goodlad, Alastair
Marten, Neil


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Brittan, Leon
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mather, Carol


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Maude, Angus


Brotherton, Michael
Gray, Hamish
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Eldon
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Buck, Antony
Grist, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick


Budgen, Nick
Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bulmer, Esmond
Hall, Sir John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Burden, F. A.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman


Carlisle, Mark
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hannam, John
Monro, Hector


Channon, Paul
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus


Churchill, W. S.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Havers, Sir Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Clegg, Walter
Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Cockcroft, John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cope, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Cordle, John H.
Hodgson, Robin
Mudd, David


Cormack, Patrick
Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey


Corrie, John
Hordern, Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Neubert, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nott, John


Crouch, David
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Onslow, Cranley


Crowder, F. P.
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hurd, Douglas
Page, John (Harrow West)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Drayson, Burnaby
James, David
Parkinson, Cecil


du Cann,Rt Hon Edward
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Durant, Tony
Jessel, Toby
Percival, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pink, R. Bonner


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jopling, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Elliott, Sir William
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prior, Rt Hon James


Emery, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Eyre, Reginald
Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy


Fairbalrn, Nicholas
Kimball, Marcus
Rathbone, Tim


Fairgrieve, Russell
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Farr, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)




Rees-Davies, W. R.
Skeet, T. H. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Speed, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Spence, John
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Ridsdale, Julian
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wall, Patrick


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Sproat, Iain
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stainton, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Weatherill, Bernard


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Wells, John


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J.
Winterton, Nicholas


St, John-Stevas, Norman
Tepsell, Peter
Wood,Rt Hon Richard


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Younger, Hon George


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tebbit, Norman



Shepherd, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shersby, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and


Silvester, Fred
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Mr.Michael Roberts.


Sims, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D.



Sinclair, Sir George
Trotter, Neville





NOES


Abse, Leo
Davidson, Arthur
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Allaun, Frank
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)



Anderson, Donald
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Archer, Peter
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Janner, Greville


Ashley, Jack
Deakins, Eric
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Ashton, Joe
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Atkinson, Norman
Dempsey, James
John, Brynmor


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dolg, Peter
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Bates, Alf
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bean, R. E.
Dunn, James A.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Beith, A. J.
Dunnett, Jack
Judd, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Edge, Geoff
Kelley, Richard


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Kerr, Russell


Bidwell, Sydney
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bishop, E. S.
English, Michael
Kinnock, Neil


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ennals, David
Lambie, David


Boardman, H.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lamborn, Harry


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lamond, James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Evans, John (Newton)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bradley, Tom
Faulds, Andrew
Lee, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Flannery, Martin
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lipton, Marcus


Buchan, Norman
Ford, Ben
Litterick, Tom


Buchanan, Richard
Forrester, John
Loyden, Eddie


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Luard, Evan


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Freeson, Reginald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Campbell, Ian
Freud, Clement
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McCartney, Hugh


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carmichael, Neil
George, Bruce
McElhone, Frank


Carter, Ray
Gilbert, Dr John
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ginsburg, David
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cartwright, John
Golding, John
MacKenzie, Gregor


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Gould, Bryan
Mackintosh, John P.


Clemitson, Ivor
Gourley, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, John (Islington C)
McNamara, Kevin


Coleman, Donald
Grocott, Bruce
Madden, Max


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Magee, Bryan


Concannon, J. D.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mellalieu, J. P. W.


Conlan, Bernard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marks, Kenneth


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Marquand, David


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cowans, Harry
Hooley, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Horam, John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Meacher, Michael


Crawshaw, Richard
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cronin, John
Huckfield, Les
Mendelson, John


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mikardo, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William







Moonman, Eric
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tierney, Sydney


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Tinn, James


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rooker, J. W.
Tomlinson, John


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Roper, John
Torney, Tom


Moyle, Roland
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Urwin, T. W.


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Newens, Stanley
Ryman, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Noble, Mike
Sedgemore, Brian
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Oakes, Gordon
Selby, Harry
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ogden, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


O'Halloran, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Michael


Orbach, Maurice
Short, Mrs Renée (Wole NE)
Watkins, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Weetch, Ken


Ovenden, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Weitzman, David


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Silverman, Julius
Wellbeloved, James


Padley, Walter
Skinner, Dennis
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Palmer, Arthur
Small, William
White, James (Pollok)


Park, George
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Whitehead, Phillip


Parker, John
Snape, Peter
Whitlock, William


Parry, Robert
Spearing, Nigel
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Pavitt, Laurie
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Pendry, Tom
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Penhaligon, David
Steel, Rt Hon David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Perry, Ernest
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Phipps, Dr Colin
Stoddart, David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stott, Roger
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Price, William (Rugby)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Radice, Giles
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Woof, Robert


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Swain, Thomas
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Richardson, Miss Jo
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)



Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Robinson, Geoffrey
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Roderick, Caerwyn
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. James Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT (SOUTH-WEST ENGLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hicks: It is a custom of this House for hon. Members to declare their interests. This I do willingly in that I was born in Devon, have had the good fortune to live and work all my life in the West Country, and now represent a Cornish constituency. Thus it both saddens and annoys me that in opening the first debate for some years on West Country affairs on the Floor of the House—the last occasion being when my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) did so in 1968—it should be because our region has the most severe unemployment of any part of the United Kingdom.
Let me put this in perspective statistically. At present, the South-West Region has an unemployment figure of 7·1 per cent. compared with the national average of 6·1 per cent. To the casual observer, this may not appear to be too serious a problem. However, it conceals the unfortunate fact that successive Governments have grouped together into our South-West Region two divergent and contrasting areas. The region takes in Gloucestershire, Avon and Wiltshire, whose economic and social structure and geographical considerations are very different from those of the far South-West counties. Indeed, Bristol, our so-called regional capital, is nearer to London than it is to Bodmin. The further west one goes, so the lack of job opportunities increases, the average level of incomes decreases, there is a narrowing of the industrial base, and we become more dependent upon the traditional forms of employment, such as agriculture, horticulture, fishing, mining and quarrying and tourism, supplemented by only scattered pockets of light industry.
Such is the gravity of the position today that the South-West Development Area, which comprises most of Cornwall and North Devon, has an unemployment figure of 11·8 per cent., which is the highest for any United Kingdom development area. Merseyside, the next

worst affected, has 10·6 per cent. Scotland, which is third in this unfortunate league table, has 8·4 per cent. Cornwall alone has an unemployment level of 12·8 per cent., while in certain parts of my constituency, such as the Liskeard-Looe employment area, the January 1977 unemployment figure was 14·9 per cent.
Sadly, the unemployment position in respect of school leavers reflects this trend. In the town of Bodmin itself, of all the school leavers unemployed in August of last year, 26 per cent. still have not found jobs.
One of the fundamental messages which I wish to impress upon the Government is that at present it is not only the older industrial areas with very high urban concentrations of populations which are suffering. Rural districts also have equally severe problems. Rural deprivation can be as great as that of the older inner city areas. It is for this reason that I believe that the Government are mistaken in their policy of allocating the country's scarce resources on such a large scale to the inner cities. Just because there are fewer Socialist Members representing rural constituencies that does not mean that our needs and requirements should be ignored.
I recognise that certain of the economic difficulties facing the nation reflect the international situation. But I believe that actions by this Government have aggravated the position in the South-West as a result of their own incompetence and economic mismanagement. For example, the Government's approach to the taxation of smaller companies and the self-employed leaves much to be desired.
The South-West is greatly dependent for its economic livelihood upon these two groups. One in five of the men and women currently at work in my constituency is self-employed. In addition, only if the cash flow situations of these smaller units can be improved and only if the various demands placed upon such companies and individuals by the Government are lifted can we as a country derive maximum output and the subsequent expansion of these business enterprises. The Minister must realise that in the West Country it is the small companies which are the wealth creators and thus the providers of employment.


At present, initiative is being stifled and profitability is being kept to a minimum. Unless we reverse the trend quickly, adequte investment will not be forthcoming and future employment prospects will be dampened rather than made better.
Another way in which the Government have accentuated the problems has been the constant changing of taxation rates, the classic case being the introduction of a differential VAT rate, which had an extremely adverse effect on two specific industries well represented in the South-West, namely, boat building and the manufacture of television sets.
I recall the debates in Committee on the Finance Bill when we attempted to bring home to the Government how putting up the top rate to 25 per cent. on these two industries would have very severe and damaging effects on local employment in the South-West. In 1973, a major national manufacturer of television sets was persuaded to come to Saltash, in my constituency. This would have created 400 jobs, many of them quality jobs in the company's research and development division with definite career prospects, especially for younger men and women with good qualifications. Sadly, that company, despite making all the arrangements, including having a factory constructed, had to back out. One of the reasons for that was the Government's action in increasing the rate on television sets to 25 per cent. and the rate on television rentals as well.
More recently, the decision to withdraw the regional employment premium so abruptly had an extremely adverse effect on companies located in the South-West Development Area. Ministers are ill-advised to claim that the effects of the withdrawal of REP, which is worth £4 million to the South-West Development Area, will be offset by the additional resources being allocated through selective assistance to industry, the extension of temporary employment subsidies and job creation schemes.
I say that for the very good reason that many of these programmes are available throughout the country as a whole. They have no regional implications. Thus, areas such as the far South-West

may be placed at a further disadvantage compared with the rest of the country.
There is one specific form of economic activity whose present plight is such that I wish to draw attention to it. I refer, of course, to the building and construction industry. Because of its lack of a wide industrial base, the South-West is far more dependent upon this industry for employment than most other parts of the United Kingdom. This is confirmed by the fact that unemployed building workers in the South-West now constitute 1·4 per cent. of the total work force of the South-West Region compared with a figure of 0·9 per cent. for the country as a whole. I think that that illustrates the dependence upon the building and construction industry.
It is important for the Secretary of State to realise that any public expenditure cuts involving construction projects, whether they be local authority housing, roads, schools, health facilities or whatever, have a disproportionately adverse effect on the overall level of economic activity in regions such as the South-West. That is why we believe that the emphasis now being placed on supplying special aid for the older urban areas is so unfair.
We believe that such is the magnitude and intensity of the various problems currently facing the South-West that it is right to bring them to the attention of the Government this evening. The people of the West Country are good, responsible and loyal citizens. They are as bewildered as I am at times by certain trends and developments that are taking place in our society. However, on this occasion they are quite clear and determined in their attitudes. They are annoyed that a Government who claim to represent all sections of the community—I remind the House that in the Bodmin Division alone average earnings are 12 per cent. below national average earnings—are insensitive to the real difficulties that those in the South-West now face.
People are people wherever they live and work. On the basis of any objective assessment, no Minister can deny that the South-West Region is passing through a very serious phase. There is a limit to the level of taxation and bureaucratic interference that Governments can impose upon the business and commercial sections of the community. That


applies to employers, employees and the self-employed. In my view the limit has been reached. If the Government wish to assist peripheral areas such as the South-West they should acknowledge that fact and make a clear commitment that they are prepared to take the necessary remedial action as an immediate priority.
The people of the South-West do not wish to be regarded as the forgotten region of the United Kingdom. They are looking to the Government to give them some sort of meaningful encouragement

7.43 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): This is the first occasion on which I have debated with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) across the Dispatch Boxes. I congratulate him on the way in which he opened the debate. The hon. Gentleman has displayed a considerable knowledge of the region as well as considerable concern. If he has not been thoroughly objective in the comparative position of his region with others, I can very much understand the reasons for that.
I welcome the opportunity of debating unemployment in the South-West because I am conscious that when we debated North-West regional affairs a fortnight ago the debate was a valuable two-way process that enabled Ministers to respond to some of the major issues being raised and enabled Back Benchers to make Ministers more aware of their concern about unemployment in their region, and in doing so to become more aware of the concern of their constituents.
It is because this will be a relatively short debate that I want to keep my contribution short so that I may listen more to what Back Benchers have to say. I shall be short but not because I have any wish to avoid facing a number of the issues that come up strongly in employment terms in the South-West. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is on the Government Front Bench not only because he is concerned about agriculture in the region and keeps me fully aware of its employment implications, but because he and I in our respective capacities visited the South-West at the same time. Last year we seemed to follow one another around the country. We visited the South-West and considered its problems at the same time.
Although the South-West contains about 7 per cent. of all the employees in the country, it has 8 per cent. of the unemployed persons. That is a measure of the problem that is faced by the region. I readily accept what the hon. Member for Bodmin said about the overall statistic of regional unemployment in the area. I accept that it masks considerable variations. Although unemployment rates are well below the national average in places such as Gloucester, there are pockets of high unemployment in places such as Penzance. Further, the statistics do not reveal the hardship that faces individuals in the South-West.
Clearly, unemployment does not affect all individuals equally. Some people may find another job very quickly. Although their period of unemployment is an experience that they would not wish to repeat, viewed in retrospect it is a short transitional phase between one job and another. But the hardship of unemployment in the South-West is probably better gauged by the number of people who have been unemployed for a considerable period.
A number of the measures that the Government have introduced can help considerably. For example, the Employment Protection Act has given people the right to longer periods of redundancy notice and organised workers the right to be consulted on matters of redundancy and to join with employers in examining the possibilities of a joint application for TES. Nevertheless, many individuals have found themselves thrown out of work as a result of factors that they only partially understand and over which they have no individual control.
Much is made by the Press of isolated cases of scroungers. It is claimed that there are those who do not really want work. I do not deny that such people exist, but they represent a small minority. There are those who try to represent that this is a major problem. They suggest that it is some sort of characteristic of the people of any of the regions of high unemployment. They do a grave disservice to working people.
For most of the people of this country employment is not only a source of income but a way in which they define their rôle in life. For many it is a tangible expression of their own worth


to society. For those reasons, unemployment is one of the most soul-destroying forms of deprivation.
Unemployment falls particularly heavily on school leavers. I admit that that is a special problem in the South-West. There can be nothing more demoralising for school leavers than to be faced with a long period of unemployment. They feel either that adult society does not care about their predicament or that it has not been competent in organising society in a way that enables it to employ their talents and their will to work in the interests of society.
In more normal times when we were not struggling for our economic survival in the most serious post-war depression we have ever known, the number of people unemployed were largely comprised of those moving from one job to another, but now in the South-West nearly 22,000 people have been unemployed for more than one year. That is a tragic waste of human potential. The fact that there are many other countries with high levels of unemployment is no consolation to the unemployed person in the South-West or, for that matter, to those who live anywhere else. However, it gives some indication of the nature of the problem with which we are grappling. The complexity of the problem is such that there are no blanket solutions.
Nowhere is that more true than of the South-West where the problem varies from region to region. Therefore, I am conscious of the extent to which by generalising in talking about the South-West I shall lay myself open to fair criticism that I am not reflecting the special problems of Members representing South-West constituencies.
As the region is an area of outstanding natural beauty, many people seem to regard the South-West as a place of agriculture and tourism. That is not surprising, I suppose, when half the area is designated as national parks because of its outstanding beauty, or when 270 miles of its coastline are designated heritage coast by the Countryside Commission. Agriculture is important to the South West—I would hardly say otherwise with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture sitting on the Front Bench beside me—but it provides only 3·3 per

cent. of the area's total employment. In spite of any general impressions which might exist to the contrary, the South-West is heavily dependent upon manufacturing industry for employment. Fewer than 5,000 people in the South-West are employed in agriculture compared with 426,000 in manufacturing industry.

Mr. Peter Mills: Surely the Minister agrees that although the number of people engaged in agriculture is small, the number engaged in food processing and manufacturing and in those concerns which service agriculture is enormous. That must be taken into account.

Mr. Booth: I intend to develop this point because it is important. I do not for one moment deny the hon. Gentleman's point about the connection between agriculture and food processing in other jobs. But of the total number of people employed in the South-West, it is undeniable that there is a far greater dependence on manufacturing industry than on any other activity. Put simply. for every one on the land there are eight on the factory floor. That is about the size of the problem. To make a comparison with tourism, for every one employed in hotels or providing accommodation for tourists there are 10 on the factory floor. The size of the construction industry has to bear some relationship to the demand within the area for a whole series of services as well as the level of manufacturing, but even so 88 per cent. more people are employed in that industry than in agriculture.
Therefore, one must bear in mind the importance of manufacturing in terms of jobs. Let us consider the diversity of manufacturing industry in the region. There are electronics, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, tyres, other industrial rubber production, railway equipment, building materials, diesel engines, aero-engines, agricultural machinery and marine engineering—

Mr. David Penhaligon: One of the points that West Country Members would wish to make is that we regard Bristol as an industrial suburb of Birmingham with nothing whatever to do with West Country problems.

Mr. Booth: The hon. Member bears out the point that I make in two ways. First, there are great differences between one part of the South-West and another. That is common ground between us. However, he also bears me out in my contention that the way in which overall industrial strategy succeeds or fails in this country is of considerable importance to employment in the South-West. If one wants to measure, by the test of the aviation industry, the importance of manufacturing industry, it should be noted that in only three centres—Bristol, Christchurch and Yeovil—that industry provides 40,000 jobs.
That fact must be accepted, but that is not to deny that the region is affected by the economic recession in the service industries as well. I accept that the hotel industry has been adversely affected by the tendency of people to take more camping holidays and more self-servicing holidays. However, manufacturing industry, particularly the newer industries such as electronics, packaging and so on, has been particularly badly affected in the downturn. If Government policy is to be relevant, therefore, to the needs of the South-West it must take account not only of the immediate problems of the recession but of some of the structural problems of the region which were outlined and acknowledged by the hon. Member for Bodmin when he described the situation there.
Let me therefore briefly outline some of the Government's measures to mitigate the worst effects of the immediate recession and to deal with the longer-term structural problems of the South-West. In co-operation with the Manpower Services Commission the Government have introduced a wide range of special schemes designed to ameliorate the worst effects of economic recession. Most of these are well known to hon. Members who have engaged in employment debates. They are the job creation scheme, the work experience programme, the youth employment subsidy scheme, the job release scheme, and the temporary employment subsidy. While a majority of these are short-term counter-cyclical schemes, they have proved especially cost effective in providing and saving jobs.
In the South-West these measures have assisted 19,000 people. I refer only to

Department of Employment measures and I take no account of industrial support or training. They have been effective in assisting young people, and I acknowledge that that type of unemployment is a particular problem of the South-West. However, the situation has changed considerably with the introduction of a wide number of measures especially designed to assist young people. Unemployment among school leavers has dropped from 12,000 last August to the present figure of 2,800. Admittedly the number is still far too high, but no one will deny that the drop has been dramatic.
The impact of the temporary employment subsidy in the South-West is considerable, and 11,000 jobs are now sustained in the South-West region by TES. The job creation programme is currently providing 4,500 jobs at a cost of about —4¼ million. One of the things which fascinates me about the job creation scheme is the way in which people of good will and initiative can use that scheme not only to provide jobs but to meet the needs of their own areas. We can benefit by looking at some of the more successful and ambitious projects run under job creation.
It has been important in the current recession to sustain the level of training in the South-West. That is why we have sought to ensure that the training opportunities scheme should be steadily and consistently expanded from over 4,300 who were trained in the South-West in 1965 to 6,300 in 1976, and a further expansion is now taking place. These measures to stimulate training will benefit the South-West in the short term in enabling people to spend time that would otherwise be spent in unemployment in upgrading existing skills or acquiring new skills, thus ensuring that the region has the requisite number of skilled men and women available when the upturn comes.
Perhaps I may now consider the longterm structural problems. There is an absence in the South-West of a tremendous dependence on a single industry, a dependence which one finds in other regions of high unemployment where a recession in steel, shipbuilding or mining has led to massive unemployment. A diminution of employment prospects in some of the older industries has taken place against the background of newer


industries coming in and bringing a far greater diversity of manufacturing activity.
I entirely accept what the hon. Member for Bodmin said about the way in which industry has been located in the South-West. The further one goes towards the south-western tip of the peninsula, the sparser becomes the location of industry, the lower the activity rates, the higher the unemployment, the lower the earnings and the harder it is for the married woman to obtain work. Of course, this is a special feature of the problems of the area.
It was in recognition of that special feature that in 1966 the regions of Cornwall and North Devon were designated development areas. In recognising that, we did so knowing that these areas were not like other regions of high unemployment where there is a necessity to locate massive factories providing many jobs. That sort of action is not needed in the South-West. Instead there is a need for small firms to be located there —firms that will take root, and expand in order to meet labour and employment requirements of the area. This was a point that I discussed with Manpower Services Committee of the South-West the last time I was down there.
That is why the advance factory programme of the South-West is particularly significant. Many of these factories are small and they provide the opportunity that is needed. Of the 29 Government advance factories in the area, 15 have been allocated to occupants, seven have been completed and are ready for occupation, and another seven are under construction. I welcome the decision of the Development Commission to set up two more advance factories in the South-West. All this is very helpful.
In addition, regional selective assistance is important and it has resulted in considerable headway being made. A total of £6·2 million of regional assistance has been allocated for 139 projects in the South-West and this has helped to safeguard a further 7,000 jobs, at least until the 1980s. Regional selective assistance is a weapon that can be used effectively against unemployment in the South West.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Will the Secretary of State tell

me how I can answer a shop steward from my constituency whom I met only last week? I am not in a development area. He asked me how his workers who were hard working and maintaining a high level of output could compete with factories just down the road which were receiving Government assistance and which were unable to sustain such a high level of economic output?

Mr. Booth: I do not think that is a hard question to answer. The fact that there are advance factories standing empty in these areas shows that at the depth of the recession there is not a lot of footloose industry around, and there are not a lot of people who are ready to uproot themselves from factories such as those from which the shop steward came to go into other areas. That is a problem of the development areas during a recession. It is harder to draw people into these areas to establish new industries so that when the upturn comes the full benefit of the development areas status can be felt.
It is encouraging, in a rather serious picture, to see the success of the accelerated projects scheme in the South-West. This scheme is offering grants to companies to make an earlier start on investment projects that they have in prospect in order to help the South-West. Assistance totalling £3 million has been offered in respect of 11 projects, which will mean £33 million worth of assistance in the South-West. This will create 1,700 jobs. This is a measure of the extent to which industry, even in places where it is set up in relatively small units, is becoming more and more capital intensive. In those projects under the accelerated projects scheme, the amount of investment per job works out on average at £20,000.
While I understand and sympathise with the efforts of hon. Members from the South-West to press for more to be done to establish industry in the South-West, I think that we should be misleading the House if we said that we see the establishment of this new industry—which we want to see—as offering instantaneously a massive number of jobs.
Because industry is becoming more capital intensive it will be able to expand production more rapidly only if there is an overall increase in productivity and


more and more jobs are brought in. We have no choice. We cannot choose as an alternative an antiquated labour-intensive industry, because it could not survive in competition with world markets or with imports from other countries. In knowing what we must aim for, we must have our eyes open to the limits that can be achieved in any situation other than a boom in which the level of manufacturing output increases much faster than productivity.

Mr. John Watkinson: I think that my right hon. Friend has developed the very important argument. The logical development of that argument is that if we know primary employment is diminishing and secondary employment is in a situation in which capital investment in it is diminishing, the only area left is tertiary employment—in service industries or in the public sector.

Mr. Booth: Looking at the logical outcome to the argument that I am developing, we must find a way of expanding employment in the services sector. We must have that expansion of output in manufacturing industry in order to create the wealth which is necessary so that it can be diverted by taxation or some other means to create effective services employment. We cannot do it the other way round. By expanding the services activity we shall not increase the amount of manufacturing industry.
The measures I have spoken of tonight, particularly Section 8 schemes under the Industry Act, have brought £3·2 million worth of assistance to projects in the South-West. That has had a considerable effect. In fact, the combined effect is such that there are more jobs in the South-West today than there were in 1971, 1972 or 1973. The mid-year figures, seasonally adjusted on exactly the same boundary areas, show an increase in the number of jobs in the South-West and against the background of a world recession that is a considerable achievement.
The high birth rate of the early 1960s, coupled with the increased proportion of married women seeking work, has led to an increase in unemployment despite the fact that there are more jobs. In terms of job expansion we must run much faster before we solve the problem. Despite all

that has been done to diversify the economy of the South-West, there is a long way to go in solving the structural problems of employment.
But the solitary fact that there are more jobs shows that the many measures that have been brought to bear in this area have led to a considerable improvement, and these can be used very effectively in future. We must realise that there are limits to the effects the measures can have. There are limits to the effects of any regional policy in a recession, but there is every reason to believe that, as economic activity picks up, the South-West will recover very quickly.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The Secretary of State is giving very sympathetic consideration to our case. Would he mention communications? Hitherto Government policy—and this policy has been followed by successive Governments -has been that roads should be built where the density of employment dictates. In the South-West we are in the obverse position. Because of the scarcity of employment, we need roads to open up the opportunities. The Devon and Somerset County Councils and hon. Members from all three parties representing these areas have agreed that the overwhelming priority should be the spur road into North Devon. Can we rely on the Secretary of State's support and influence with his right hon. Friend to keep this as a top priority?

Mr. Booth: I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to deal in more detail with transport matters, with which I have not time to deal now, but I accept that communication is an essential part of the infrastructure in the development of industrial employment
I welcome the fact that communications in the South-West have been and are continuing to be improved. Above all, I look to the future and to the fact that increasingly people desire to place their business and investment in areas that are favoured by the kind of advantages that exist in the South-West. I am not merely talking about the beautiful countryside and the pleasant climate of the South-West, but of the history of good industrial relations that exists in that part of the country. I also have in mind the ability of the people of the South-West to adapt themselves to run a whole range


of diversified manufacturing industries and services.
For that reason we have every reason to expect that, once economic activity picks up generally, the South-West will be one of the first areas to benefit.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) on obtaining this debate. My hon. Friend made a fine introductory speech. This is a timely debate. I did not realise until a few moments ago that the last occasion when the House discussed this subject was when I initiated a debate many years ago. Therefore, my hon. Friend is right to choose this important subject for debate tonight.
The whole House is grateful for the presence of the Secretary of State for Employment. We know him to be an honourable and sincere man. Nobody would disagree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman or, indeed, with his general comments. We agree that his diagnosis of the situation was accurate. Let the right hon. Gentleman take credit for what has been done. There is no quarrel between us on that score. We are striving for the same ends. We disagree only about the means.
Let me outline the areas in which my hon. Friends and I disagree with the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentle- man was right to emphasise the significance of small firms in the economy of the South-West and, indeed, in the national economy. But if he feels as strongly as I do about their importance, let me remind him of what has happened to small firms. A number of penalties have been placed upon them and their activities, and they have been totally discouraging to businesses whose only crime apparently is that they have owned and developed businesses in the United Kingdom.
If I speak briefly, the brevity of my remarks can be taken to be in inverse proportion to the intensity of my feelings on this subject. If the position on unemployment is gross in the United Kingdom as a whole, as it is at present, undeniably the situation in the South-West is far graver. Does the Secretary of State

appreciate how rapidly the position has deteriorated in recent times?
Let me quote some figures. Between 1970 and 1974 the average figure of unemployment in the South West totalled roughly 40,000. In 1975—these are official Government statistics—the average figure rose to 74,000, in 1976 it rose to 96,000 and in January 1977 it was 105,000. That is a legacy of the Labour Government. During Labour's period of office, unemployment in the South-West has multiplied two and a half times.
This situation has some fearsome aspects. The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin amazed me because of its moderation. It is a matter not only of the concealed amount of unemployment which we all know to exist in our local villages and towns, but of the fact that we all know of areas in which rates of unemployment are as high as 14 per cent.

Mr. Thorpe: In some places the figure is 19 per cent.

Mr. du Cann: The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) instances a figure of 19 per cent., and there are many places where the figure is even higher. In my constituency of Taunton, the total number of unemployed is over 2,000. I exclude West Somerset from that figure but it is still unacceptable, a disgrace and, what is more, unnecessary.
It is a matter of bitter complaint in the South-West that from time to time our problems are made more difficult because of careless Government action. Such factors tend to aggregate. Let me refer to my own county town of Taunton. Some time ago there was a reorganisation of local government boundaries—and I express no party political point, because some of us expressed doubts on that score at the time. Somerset was reduced from the third largest county in the United Kingdom to the third smallest That has meant a substantial contraction of the county's wealth, particularly in the richest part of the county, part of which has gone to form the new county of Avon. Employment in the county town has shrunk, and that is a serious matter. One would have thought that the Government would have said "We shall look upon Taunton as an area with special care", but not a bit of it.


What do the Government propose to do about the situation? We have lost our country regiment and are about to lose in the county every vestige of a military presence which has been with us for centuries. It is being done apparently without any thought. It is a logistic absurdity to concentrate the whole of the British Army in one place—namely, Salisbury Plain. It is absurd to take the Army away from local centres of population when over the years the Army has identified itself increasingly with the local civilian population.
The effects on Taunton will he enormous, and I should like to quantify them. There will be redundancies of 250 clerical staff and 233 industrial staff. Because of Government action, at a stroke of the administrative pen, the present total of 2,000 unemployed is likely to be swollen by almost 500. Therefore, the number of unemployed locally may rise by 25 per cent. What consultation was there between Departments, and what discussions took place between the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Employment before decisions were taken? The reality is that Government actions are indivisible. One cannot separate one arm of the Government's activities from another.
I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that he keeps in close contact with his colleagues in the Government when reaching decisions that affect local employment adversely. I hope he will represent to his colleagues that these cuts should be cancelled. They are bad in themselves and involve immense hidden costs. For example, because of the lack of expenditure by the Army in Taunton the area will be made infinitely poorer. Where is the sense in that course?
It is right to emphasise that we have special problems in the South-West. We are not a rich area and we have problems of geography. We in the rural areas need special help. Does the Secretary of State realise how bitterly the new governmental policy involving priorities for the urban areas is resented in rural areas? If it is continued and pressed, if more emphasis goes into that policy—and one knows the difficulties and is not unsympathetic to large urban areas such as Liverpool, Manchester and London—and it is pursued to its ultimate, the countryside of England will become a new slum. We

strongly object to that and we object to the apparent casualness of the Government to that possibility. Places such as West Somerset, Dulverton and Exmoor already feel that the future is bleak enough. There is no work for school leavers there and the need to move out is compulsory if worthwhile careers are to be pursued by young people.
I acknowledge with gratitude the work that has been done by the Development Commission and COSIRA, with which hon. Members will be familiar. I must ask the Secretary of State whether he will give consideration to the proposal that West Somerset should now have assisted area status. I emphasise the point for this reason. In future it is likely that towns such as Plymouth and Bridgwater will become comparatively prosperous cities while the countryside will continue to decline. We must arrest that trend.
It has been the habit of hon. Members who have the honour to represent West Country constituencies to press continualy the need for good communications. It is as a result of earlier debates and the pressure applied by my hon. Friends and myself that we have had the building of the M5, the improvement of the A38 as far as Plymouth, the construction of local bypasses and so on. How warmly I echo the remarks made in an intervention by the right hon. Member for Devon, North, who said how urgent it was that we should build the North Devon spur. I am pleased that the right hon. Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and I are making common cause in that regard. Equally important is the need for bypasses for some of our smaller West Country villages.
Listening to the catalogue of minor changes that the Government have made, it seemed to me that all those changes in the aggregate are by no means worth as much as would be an announcement by the Government that in the South-West they would henceforward embark on a great public works programme—as Keynes suggested—to build roads and hospitals. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) urgently needs a hospital in his constituency, as I do in mine. It was promised 40 years ago and even now is not within sight.


Surely the establishment of works of permanent value that would be of particular help to the construction industry—to which reference has already been made and which is in a serious position in the South-West—would be better than any temporary measures of job creation. If anyone complains that I am advocating further Government expenditure, I say that it is necessary for us to re-examine our priorities in Government expenditure. Let me give one example to the Secretary of State that is particularly relevant to his Department. It is an example with which a number of hon. Gentlemen will be familiar.
During the last Session, the Public Accounts Committee examined the Manpower Services Agency. I do not know whether the House recalls our report, but the expense of the Agency in putting 1,000 jobcentres in the High Streets of the United Kingdom has risen from £100 million three years ago to £424 million in the current year. Is such expenditure really necessary? Everybody knew where the old employment centres were—in the back streets. Such centres do not have to be in High Streets. Could we not use that money on the North Devon spur, the Wiveliscombe bypass, the Weston-super-Mare and Taunton hospitals and the like? Would not the money be better spent in that way?

Mr. John Nott: We have a borrowing requirement of £11 billion at the moment, and my right hon. Friend should pay some attention to public expenditure in making his points. I have never interrupted him in such an abrupt and rude way before, but he must justify his comments on increased public works.

Mr. du Cann: If my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) would like me to list the items of public expenditure that could be cut out altogether I shall do so, but not on this occasion. But when we are spending huge amounts of money let us spend it in the wisest and most productive ways. Otherwise the money is a total waste.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the proliferation of private employment agencies throughout major cities—all of them in High Streets—to be a waste of money?

Mr. du Cann: Those are not paid for by public money—vast amounts of it at that.
Another reflection that I had while listening to the Secretary of State's speech was that he was underrating agriculture. Fifty thousand people are employed in that industry. I hope that the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friends, when they are in Brussels making the point that when unemployment is as high as it is throughout Europe people cannot afford to spend large amounts of money on food —all of which is true, accurate and reasonable—will add that, none the less, farmers in the South-West, who are at subsistence level, cannot afford not to receive proper returns on their labour and investment. I hope that we shall see a generous price review.
As the Opposition spokesman and the Secretary of State have both said, and as we all know, there are all the skills and talents in the South-West. There is the necessary environment. It is a dreadful thing that unemployment in our part of the world has grown so much faster than in other regions. I hope that the Secretary of State's presence here tonight indicates that the practical suggestions that we have made in the debate will be acted on and that our region will become far from what we feel it is now—the forgotten region.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): It might be helpful to the House if I mention that the debate will stop at 10 o'clock and that there will be two winding-up speeches, but I have a list of 17 hon. Members who would like to catch my eye. My mathematics do not, unfortunately, supply me with the answer, but perhaps the House will give me such assistance as it can.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I shall pay attention to the Chair's request and I shall be as short as I can. I agree with much of what was said by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). He shocked his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), but that does not mean that he was wrong—it probably means that he was right.
But I could not agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech when he was


so worried and troubled about what had happened to Taunton, the county town of Somerset, as a result of local government reorganisation. I hope that he does not blame the Labour Party for that, because we in Bristol now live under the domination of Avon County, which was inflicted upon us and which I hope we shall end as soon as possible.

Mr. Wiggin: The Labour Party refused to vote against the Third Reading of the Local Government Bill. Had it done so it might have received some strange support.

Mr. Palmer: If the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) wishes to join us now in getting rid of Avon, I am sure that we shall be delighted.
There is a great temptation for hon. Members from Bristol constituencies tonight to speak on Bristol's problems—the aviation industry, the need to maintain defence contracts and so on. But I shall not succumb to that temptation and shall concentrate on the broad subject of the debate.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) talked disparagingly about the interest of Bristol Members in the debate. I do not know whether he thinks that Cabot sailed from Southend or that the "Great Britain" was built in Sheffield, but Bristol has every claim to be regarded as a great city of the South-West, historically and in fact. We all of us in Bristol know the South-West pretty well; indeed, I was born in North Devon.
One rather surprising fact emerges from a study of the unemployment figures in the South-West. Of the seven counties in the region, only three have unemployment rates above the national average—though I am not, of course, saying that the present average is anything to be proud of. Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire have unemployment rates which are rather below the national average. The two worst hit counties by unemployment are Devon and Cornwall, and this is obviously because so many people there are employed in the seasonal tourist trade.
Where there is a fair balance and mix of employment in, for example, the holiday trade, agriculture, light industry and food processing, reasonable levels of

employment can be maintained in good times and bad. Somerset, Avon, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire have much of that balanced mix of industry. The rest of the area, particularly the far West, is not so fortunate. In those areas there is always a social conflict which centres around the representation on local authorities, few, if any of which are Labour controlled. There are those who wish to maintain the areas as isolated rural backwaters or, at best, seaside playgrounds and those who see the constant need for a greater injection of industry.
The election addresses of Labour candidates in the local council elections in the West Country always stress the need for greater industrial development. That is a continuing theme of the propaganda of the Labour Party in the far West and it is a great pity that more of our candidates are not elected-but there is still time.
It is unfair nonsense for the Conservative Party to pretend that high unemployment in the South-West is caused by the fact that we have a Labour Government here. I was taken by the figures of the right hon. Member for Taunton, but I have a fact to quote to him. During the short-lived expansionist boom time of the last Conservative Government the percentage unemployment in Tobay still reached double figures in the winter. This problem of structural unemployment is not dependent upon the colour of the Government at Westminster.

Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With no disrespect to yourself or to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), do you consider it to be in order for the House to have to listen to generalised ramblings ranging many hundreds of miles from the hon. Gentleman's constituency when you have appealed to us for brevity on this subject?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are being brief on the motion for the Adjournment. I have little power to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Palmer: The subject of the debate is unemployment in the South-West and I am fully in order to talk about that and the general economic problems of the South-West. Perhaps the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) will


have an opportunity to speak later if he takes up less time intervening.
I wish to refer to the part theme of the hon. Member who opened for the Opposition: the difficulties of the construction industry in the South-West. It has been particularly hard hit by the recession. I raised the matter on the Adjournment of the House last year. More recently, on last Friday evening, I was disunited on a platform with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) and we spoke to representatives of the same industry. Building and construction employees are experiencing more than their fair share of unemployment. The industry has gone into reverse since the peak of property speculation building four or five years ago. Every section is affected—labourers, skilled men. large and small employers, architects and planners.
The trade union view is clear. Trade unions want more public expenditure to stimulate building employment. They are well aware that national and local government are probably the largest single customers of their industry and they believe that that is where expansion should take place in a time of depression. The difficulty is that the employers are caught in a dilemma. On the one hand they want public spending economies but on the other hand they want more orders for their firms.
In that respect I agree with the right hon. Member for Taunton. This is a time for expenditure on productive capital works for the future. If there is a falling back in immediate private consumption, that is all the more reason why we should take advantage of the opportunity to expand our stock of long-term productive equipment.
My list would include new housing schemes and schools, especially those concerned with technical and technological training. We need better provision for new interconnected waterworks of all kinds, particularly in the South-West as it went through a difficult time during the summer drought. Roads have already been referred to. I also suggest that we look seriously at the electrification of the railway system all the way from London to Exeter. We should initiate a feasibility study into the possibilities of construct-

ing the Severn Barrage. That is a matter on which the Select Committee on Science and Technology will soon report. There are no real technical problems about the Barrage. Only the will is needed to begin.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) was strong on destructive points but weak on constructive points. I hope that my suggestions have been more helpful.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I shall draw the attention of the House to more practical matters than the academic problems to which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) referred.
In April 1976 we had a conference on economic development which was called by the Labour Party. It was organised under the Lord Mayor of Bristol and was carefully stage-managed. I made the point that we must do something to help small enterprises to set up in business. Even the Imperial Tobacco Company began as a small family affair, mainly in Bristol. Small enterprises are often prevented from beginning business by the lack of premises, yet the city of Bristol owns countless empty properties, including all the buildings in dockland, which amounts to a vast corporate estate. These properties could be made available to those who want to start up with two or three or 10 or 20 employees. This would have an immediate impact on the problem. Cumbersome Government intervention, conferences and all the rest do no immediate good. The immediate impact could be felt now, if the city of Bristol would address itself to this problem.
What did the Labour city fathers do? They eventually set up an economic development board in June 1976. It took them until 1st February this year to get hold of an industrial development officer. I rang him up today. I got through to him fairly quickly and he was out working this morning. He is an extremely live wire who comes from Leeds. He admits that he does not know much about our part of the country. However, he has inherited only eight potential clients from outside the city who might be interested if the city can help them. But no consideration has been given so far to the small beginner about whom I was talking, though I am delighted that there


is at last to be a meeting to consider the subject.
For heaven's sake, let the city fathers get on with this. We have lost a year quite needlessly. We have the powerful influence of Labour Members for Bristol constituencies, sitting here in their serried ranks—except the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), the most powerful of all. I hope that he will be able to get something done. This is not a matter on which we can tolerate another moment's further delay.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: It never ceases to amaze me that in any debates in this House on unemployment we hear the blatant hypocrisy of Conservative Members. It is the Conservative Party that has demanded more and more public expenditure cuts, creating more and more unemployment, and has been demanding the use of unemployment as an economic regulator. However, when it suits the area of a particular group of Conservative Members, they talk about increasing public expenditure. That hypocrisy cannot be found more clearly than in some of the areas of the South-West.
Let us first take up the question of industrial development in the South-West. It is my considered judgment that Tory councils, acting almost like little Mafias, have done all that they possibly can to prevent any industrialisation and extension of job opportunities in the South-West. They are there primarily to represent hoteliers and similar interests, and that is what they do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] One can see case after case in which they have done all that they can to stop any kind of industrial development.
They create a situation in which seasonal workers are employed for about five or six months of the year and are then thrown on to unemployment benefit or social security payments. We hear nothing about that.
I should welcome the Secretary of State examining the costs, in public expenditure terms, of unemployment benefit and social security payments to keep the hotels of the South-West of Britain in the way in which they are kept, and an inquiry into the low wages that they pay.
My right hon. Friend talked about good industrial relations in the South-West. I want to tell him why industrial relations in Devon and Cornwall are good. It is because there is one form of employment—the hotel industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".] Workers are trapped within that form of employment. In great stretches of the South-West the only employment is in the tourist industry.

Miss Janet Fookes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thomas: I remind my right hon. Friend of the famous dispute at Fine Tubes. That will go down in trade union history. I should like him to look at some of the rates of pay offered in the South-West. Last year an employer in the South-West with a five-star hotel had the gall to go on television and ask for workers at 50p an hour. Some employers in that area were paying even less. At the same time, the Tory Mafia in control of Tory councils in the South-West, when offered every kind of inducement by the Labour Government, refused to build more houses. If some of them had done what the Labour council of Bristol did, there would certainly have been far more work in the construction industry.
But what hypocrisy it is to talk about the problems of the construction industry when there are a number of Conserative Members present who attended a meeting in this House with representatives of both employers and trade unions from the construction industry in the South-West, and one of the things that came out of that meeting was the fact that Tory councils in the South-West were not taking advantage of all the opportunities being offered to them, whether in housing or in other works of construction, which would have had quite a considerable impact on the unemployment in the construction industry.
I turn now to the situation in Bristol. Over the years, Bristol has had a more or less balanced economy and therefore was not affected by the ravages of the inter-war period, but in recent years the position has altered considerably. There is now a growing concern about imbalance in the economy in Bristol and about the loss of manufacturing jobs in the


city. It is true that as an economy advances there are fewer people employed in manufacturing industry and more in service industries, but I suggest that the change in Bristol has been much more acute and has been accelerating faster than elsewhere. In 1961, 40 per cent. of the population of Greater Bristol worked in manufacturing industry, but by 1973 this figure had dropped to 31 per cent., and the decline has continued. This is a faster decline than has taken place in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The loss in manufacturing jobs has not been offset by an increase in opportunities in other sectors. There are no longer opportunities open to school leavers, and the variety of potential skills coming on to the labour market is no longer matched by job opportunities. There are long-term dangers in employment being more and more dependent on the service industries and commerce. The massive new blocks occupied by insurance and banking firms can be supported only by a sound manufacturing, wealth-creating base.
In the light of these problems, resulting from the changing balance in the Bristol economy, I appeal to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment, Trade and Industry, and others, to look at the whole philosophy which underlies the Government's attitude towards industrial development certificates and the granting of financial incentives of all kinds to industry. I think that the Government's present attitude is based more on the Bristol of the past, which had a balanced economy. I wholeheartedly support the concept of national planning of industrial resources, but there is a case for considering what the Government can do to meet the changed circumstances.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) to make fun of what the Labour council in Bristol has done, but it was a considerable step forward to set up an economic development conference which later went on to establish an economic development board. It is a great pity that some of the Tory local authorities in the South-West did not take similar action.
In terms of employment, my right hon. Friend will know that the aerospace

industry is very important to my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer). In fact, the Bristol area has the largest concentration of employment in the aerospace industry in the whole of Britain. The skills and talents of those workers continue to push forward the frontiers of technological advance. The aerospace industry is exactly the kind of industry in which we should be pushing forward, because of its high, value-added export performance, technological spin-off and so forth.
I say to Conservative Members and to that unelected group along the Corridor that there will be considerable anger among Bristol aircraft workers when they hear of today's hybridity decision of the House of Lords. The Tories and their poodles along the Corridor are frustrating and thwarting—or have attempted to frustrate—the will of this elected Chamber, and they have already put the jobs of tens of thousands of workers in jeopardy.

Mr. John Cope: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Officers of this House and the House of Lords are the poodles of the Tory Party?

Mr. Thomas: The question of hybridity would not be being discussed at the moment if the Bill had not been held up by that unelected crowd along the Corridor. It would have been an Act of Parliament by now. This House decided that it was not a Hybrid Bill.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: It did not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The matter which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) is entering into is not related directly to the subject of unemployment in the South-West, and I ask him to return to that subject.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is attributing to Mr. Speaker the exact opposite of what Mr. Speaker said. The House of Commons has never decided that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was not hybrid. The
House, by a majority—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not relevant to the subject of the debate, and, indeed, the Minister has no responsibility for it either. Can we now return to matters within the Minister's responsibility?

Mr. Thomas: Unemployment in the South-West cannot be divorced from the present economic situation and the intolerable level of unemployment throughout the country. Many of us on these Benches do not accept that the Government's policy, almost of laissez-faire and of a non-interventionist approach to the economy, can even begin to solve the intolerable level of unemployment.
Attention has been drawn, rightly, to the fact that about 16 million workers are unemployed in OECD countries. This is a crisis of capitalism, not of Socialism. I hope that any hon. Member opposite who follows me will give examples of Socialist policies which the Government have used to deal with unemployment—I say that in all sincerity. But in my judgment the Government are not adopting the kinds of policy set out in our election manifesto and by the TUC—Socialist policies based on planning our economy and industrial resources. Until they do that we shall not even begin to deal with the intolerable level of unemployment.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I apologise for upsetting Bristol Members by suggesting that Bristol was part of the Birmingham industrial complex, but having listened to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) I think that the West Country would welcome Barrow-in-Furness in its midst as opposed to his views. I must tell the Secretary of State that, through my end of the telescope, the level of unemployment and our difficulties in the South-West are somewhat worse than his speech conveyed, although I am not claiming that he tried to cover up the basic points.
Unemployment in Cornwall is over 12 per cent. In places like Helston, St. Ives, Wadebridge and Ilfracombe the level, if not at 20 per cent., is as near to it as not to matter. In some parts of the South-West, and in the development area of Devon and Cornwall, unemployment is not temporary but endemic, and it worries me greatly.
It is a frightening experience as a Member of Parliament to go to a school and talk to 15- and l6-year-olds and hear them ask "What do I do when I leave school?" As a Cornishman, it gives me no pleasure to have to tell young Cornish people once again that if they want a career with scope they have to go to England.
Government action has been taken, but I still do not understand the logic of scrapping the regional employment premium. The Government say that they want a transfer of resources into industrial production, which I applaud—we should have started on that trail some years ago. But to say that in one Budget and then, in the next, scrap the encouragement that had been given to industrial development in the far South-West is difficult for me to swallow.
My constituency is rather industrial. The China Clay Company in my constituency is probably as industrially profitable and successful as any other company in the United Kingdom. If we had a few dozen more such companies, I suspect that we would not now be discussing unemployment.
The Government have also scrapped investment incentives to the mining industry. One of the few good things which has happened in the South-West over the past few months or years has been the revival of the tin industry. We like the tin industry because, no matter what Government we have in London, at the end of the day the tin industry cannot be taken away. Once a hole has been dug, it remains there 600 ft. or 700 ft. deep, and there is a great incentive to carry on through good and bad days. To take away investment incentive from that industry is a tragic mistake. It is an industry which once again has started to grow and could have made a useful contribution in the far South-West.
The Liberal Party has long argued that the national insurance stamp should be varied regionally. It could be used to encourage a transfer of employment opportunities to less privileged areas of the country. An extra 2 per cent. did not help at all in that direction. Whether or not the Government take the view that their attitude to small business in the West Country is justified, it is the fact that many small businesses are not expanding because people believe that what


has already happened to the economy is a foretaste of more to come. There has been a great deal of pulling in of horns.
I turn now to the question of farming. I am glad that the Minister was here for the discussion on farming. I can understand why the green pound has not been revalued. It has not had the effect of bankrupting farmers, but farmers throughout the South-West are reducing production and output. That, by definition, means a reduction of employment.
I shall not enter into a debate about the importance of agriculture for the United Kingdom's balance of payments. I can see the Government's dilemma, and I am not particularly critical of their action. They had to make some arrangements such as those that were announced today.
On the other hand, I should not criticise the Government for not building advance factories. It is a great embarrassment, as I drive from my home on the other side of Truro, to see the advance factories. The Minister boasts about building more of them. I am not against encouraging that process. If we are to waste money, let us waste it in the West Country. The argument for more advance factories in my area is not strong. But we could enter into communication with Cornwall County Council, which has spent the miserably pathetic sum of —3,500 a year on a world advertising campaign to exploit the facilities already available in Cornwall. That is an appalling condemnation of the council.

Mr. David Mudd: I think that fundamentally the hon. Gentleman is missing the main point of Cornwall's problems. Traditionally, firms which have no connection with the county have constantly been drawn for the purpose of bounty hunting. Surely the attitudes towards industrial development in Cornwall should be directed solely to the expansion of industries which will use our traditional skills and aptitudes and which are associated with our industrial traditions.

Mr. Penhaligon: I have a great deal of sympathy with that proposition. As one Cornishman to another, I think that we know our own patch, although we might disagree about detail on occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who apologises for not being here—an untimely death in the family has meant that he has to attend the funeral today in Bridgwater—recently asked the Minister what was the level of male unemployment in the South-West. The figures are even more horrifying than the overall figures generally quoted. Male unemployment in Cornwall is 15·4 per cent. My hon. Friend also wanted the male unemployment figures in Cornwall expressed as a percentage of the United Kingdom average.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what were the figures in Cornwall in the middle of the summer rather than in the winter?

Mr. Penhaligon: I see no logical reason for doing that. I shall give the figures for January 1950. That is a long time ago. I take them from that date because I have no wish to get involved in a party political narrow battle. This issue is more important than that.
Unemployment in Cornwall, expressed as a percentage of the United Kingdom average, was 48 per cent. in 1950. In 1977, after all the effort which has gone into development in the South-West, it was precisely 48 per cent. It is tempting to dismiss the Government's regional development policies as a complete failure, but that would be a mistake.
As the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) implied, we have a satellite economy in our area. Any new industry going to the area is by definition a high risk industry. However, I maintain that Cornwall has been better off because of it. Some of the industry is sticking through these hard times, and that I welcome.
The trouble is that we apparently do not recognise the basic dilemma in the far South-West—a steadily increasing population. We have more jobs now than we had 15 or 20 years ago, but the one attitude appears to be "If I am to be unemployed, I might as well be unemployed in Cornwall as in Birmingham." I can understand that attitude. I take the view that to a certain extent we shall not bring down unemployment in Cornwall and Devon, including North Devon, to the level of the rest of the United Kingdom without population control. That means limiting the freedom of


people to move to various areas, and that is a solution for which I would not vote. However, if we recognise that that is the problem, we can start to deal with it.
One problem is that we in the West Country call the gradual centralisation of brain and the decentralisation of brawn. For example, I understand that in the not too distant future letters for delivery in Cornwall will be sorted at Plymouth. That will take many jobs out of Cornwall. There was employment in Cornwall in processing vehicle licensing, but all those jobs have now gone to Swansea. I now have to write to East Kilbride—I shall find out where it is one day—about my constituents' tax problems. Regional health is now administered from Bristol.
I had an interesting conversation with a water board official recently. When I asked him for comparisons of the numbers employed, he pointed out that until amalgamation, which was about the most awful thing that ever happened in the West Country—I shall save that for when I get home—there were 85 boards and they all employed people in their own patches. They went to local solicitors because they did not employ any. They also went to local plumbers, and so on. Those jobs have now been taken from Cornwall.
Teacher training is also to be centralised out of Cornwall. This trend towards centralisation continues, but it is rarely recognised in this place. I hope and pray that the Government will do something to stop it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman voted for the Common Market.

Mr. Penhaligon: I certainly did. I sometimes think that Cornwall and the South-West have an economic future which might have more to do with Brittany than with other parts of the United Kingdom. However, that is a subject for another occasion.
I warn the Government that if the full blast of technology in fishing is let loose, the mackerel fishing industry in Cornwall as we know it will cease to exist. Instead of employing the 1,000 people who are now involved in mackerel fishing in Cornwall, before many years are out we shall see six or eight purse

seiners employing 50 people whilst the other 950 are on the dole.
There are six things that I want the Government to do.

Mr. Skinner: Six?

Mr. Penhaligon: Yes, six. I have been criticised for having no ideas. I am about to suggest six. I should like to see a substantial encouragement of locally-based export co-operatives. At substantial effort, I have tried in the South-West to make a serious investigation of the idea of exporting the high-quality pottery made in the area. They are mainly little companies—what I would call "one man and a dog" companies—but that is in a strange way the appeal of the product. Individually, however, they cannot take on the EEC.
A typical comment in Cornwall is that attention must be paid to taxation on low pay. Only last weekend I was visited by a constituent who earns £30·75, of which the Government consider that he should pay £3·50 in tax. It is time that the Government considered subsidising jobs rather than unemployment. It would be interesting to try saying to the farmers in the South-West "If we give you a subsidy, will you take on extra people?" There is no doubt that they could increase their productivity.
The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said that labour-intensive schemes should be investigated. I agree. By that I mean dropping the normal financial criterion of the cheapest quotation for the job and considering instead the number of people employed in doing it. I also want a general halt to centralisation, and I would prefer regional national insurance contributions.
There is an air of despair in the South-West. The feeling is that London does not care. That breeds the worst form of nationalism. No one should laugh at nationalism in Cornwall. It is a possibility. Already people are talking about setting up armies of greenshirts to march the streets and cause trouble. That is the sort of risk we take if we cannot be more successful—in solving the unemployment problems of the far South-West.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I wonder whether, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I have had my five minutes, you


would shout "Order", and then I shall sit down.
I am grateful for the opportunity afforded by this debate. My constituency naturally suffers, like all the other constituencies in the South-West. We sometimes say that when the country catches a cold, we in the South-West have a terrible fever. That is certainly true about unemployment. The situation is very sad and unfortunate. Many people are suffering, and we are not exaggerating.
One thing we are experiencing is the drift away of our better and more intelligent young fellows who are looking for technical jobs. Another effect is the cost of getting to work. If one lives 12 or 15 miles from one of the small towns where there is a little work, the cost of travelling sometimes makes a job uneconomic. The social security benefits are nearly the same as the wage offered. Because we have few buses, travel is very expensive.
I have two suggestions for what the Government could do without spending a great deal of money. First, we need a little more flexibility in the boundary lines of development areas. In some places the line could go into the development area and in others it needs to come out. For example, in Winkleigh, one side of the road is in a development area and the other side, where there is an old airfield, is not. Someone wants to set up a new factory there. His Press advertisement attracted 200 replies seeking jobs in that remote area. However, the firm cannot get a grant because it is 200 yards from this wonderful development line.
Secondly, we must also consider agriculture. The Minister is quite wrong. Agriculture plays an enormous part in the South-West because of all the businesses which serve agriculture. We have agricultural engineers and industries concerned with transport and haulage as well as food processors, such as Unigate and Express Dairies. This is something the Government can do without spending a lot of money.
Because our food production is dropping, we are relying more and more on imported food. But where we have an area like the South-West, which can produce this food, we should give it a little

encouragement. As well as the farmers and the consumers, all those who process food in the South-West would benefit. That is something we can do without spending a lot of money.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that because of the slashing of £5 million off the Government contribution to the county council our road system will fall into disrepair and that will make it very difficult for many of the remotest farmers to remain in business?

Mr. Mills: That is so. I am certain that the Minister will remember what my hon. Friend has said. That is an important point which the Government should take into account.
Lastly, we in the South-West depend on small businesses. These people need to be encouraged. The Government have not helped by creating an economic climate in which they can flourish. Again that is something they can do.
My time is up but I hope that the Government will try to do the things that they can do without spending a lot of money.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Terry Walker: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) for the way in which he opened the debate. He drew attention to the very grave problems in his constituency. There are certainly very great problems in the far South-West. The hon. Gentleman also drew attention to the fact that this is the first debate we have had on the South-West since 1968. That is a disgrace.
From talking to trade unionists from the far South-West there is no doubt that some local authorities in Cornwall and Devon are very much influenced by tourists interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) mentioned that. In his reply perhaps the Minister will comment on this, because in the past these local authorities have been concerned about keeping industry away from tourist areas. They have always argued the case on the grounds of preservation of the environment. There is also some anxiety that industry would create a different approach to remuneration. That would inevitably happen to the tourist industry.


There are also indications that people in some parts of Cornwall are likely to react strongly against the arrival of Celtic oil men, because if that happens, it is felt, it will create an entirely new situation on the Cornish scene.
When local interests in the region talk about what ought to be done to bring jobs to the South-West they sometimes cannot understand the resentment about industry coming into the area. That is something which needs to be explained. They cannot understand why in the past planning permission has been refused.
The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) talked about agricultural land. But what is needed in the region is jobs. That has been a problem in the past and it has yet to be overcome. Last Friday I met the local CBI group in my constituency. It was certainly concerned about the situation in the area, because we are made up of very small businesses many of which are involved in light engineering. Many of them rely for 30 per cent. of their business on aircraft work.
We see what is happening today to the aircraft industry in the Bristol area. It is of concern to us that, as work on the Concorde dries up, many small businesses in my constituency will be affected by the reduction in work which at the moment keeps their heads above water. If places like the British Aircraft Corporation factory at Filton were put in jeopardy, quite a number of small business in my constituency, which rely on work from it, would be hurt seriously.
In the past, efforts have been made to ease our reliance on the aircraft industry. We are perhaps far too reliant on it. I remember well the Severnside Study which hoped to bring into the South-West other industries and so reduce our reliance on aircraft. However, all that we got was a few warehouses on Severnside employing too few people. Very little heavy industry resulted from the study. This subject needs to be looked at again. If we see any retraction in the aircraft industry, or even the possibility of its going out of the area altogether, we must have something on which to fall back, and the efforts of the Government must be attuned to that end.
In my constituency we used to have a strong footwear industry. Some 20 years

ago we had about 10 factories producing boots and shoes. Today, due to the problems of the footwear industry, we have only one factory employing 800 workers. All the rest have gone to the wall. The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) has raised this matter in the House on a number of occasions when we have had debates about footwear. If we are to survive and keep old crafts and skills available, attention must be given to problems of this kind.
Industrial estates and small businesses have to be encouraged in the South-West. But, if assistance is given to the South-West, it must come in the provision of jobs. A stable basis of employment for people living in the area must be of the highest importance.
Everyone in the South-West is gravely concerned, and the speeches which have been made by hon. Members in all parts of the House draw attention to the serious problems we have in the South-West. Too little attention has been paid to the problems of a vast region in which, for example, the distance from my constituency to Bodmin is further than the journey from Bristol to. London. I hope that the Government will give their attention to the grave problems of the region.

9.18 p.m.

Miss Janet Fookes: I intervene only briefly because I know that a number of other hon. Members wish to speak. But, if nothing else, I must refute what I thought were the disgraceful remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) who made a sweeping generalisation to the effect that the powers that be in the West Country have tried deliberately to prevent industry from coming into the region.
This is a grave slur on the city of Plymouth, which set out as a matter of policy to diversify job opportunities after the war. Its present industrial base is proof of this. If we consider how important and large the city of Plymouth is in the West Country, it becomes clear that any generalisation which leaves it out of account is entirely wrong. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will apologise for misleading the House.
The encouragement of small businesses and firms, which has already been mentioned, is especially important in the West


Country. The Government did them untold damage when they altered the rate of VAT. The increase to the so-called luxury rate of 25 per cent. did no help to boat building, which is important in the West Country. It did no help to the consumer electrical goods sector, which is also important in the area. It is true that the Government saw the red light and reduced the rate to 12½ per cent., but I suggest that they improve the situation further by considering the reduction of VAT so that there is one uniform rate. I suggest that that would give a little boost.
The very small firms might be assisted if the exemption rate for VAT were increased. Inflation justifies giving a small boost to raise exemption to £10,000 or even £15,000. That might give a little encouragement without the Government spending enormous sums.
The other anxiety that we have in the West Country springs from defence, which is especially important in Plymouth. We are always anxious when the Government seek to reduce expenditure. That is because we see an immediate reduction in jobs and job opportunities. I trust that job implications will be considered. The previous Secretary of State for Defence recognised this aspect and said so. I am not sure that the present Secretary of State has taken the matter on board. 1 hope that it will be forcibly rubbed into him.
I feel that I should not say any more save that I hope that the points I have made will be taken into consideration by the Minister.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. John Watkinson: In the context of this debate it is important that we remember that the problems of the South-West are not unique. There are special problems relating to the South-West, but there is also a national problem.
In his thoughtful speech I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated that there are facets to the problem of unemployment that go deeper than a temporary recession. Although I do not have time to develop the argument now, we in this country and those in the rest of the West must be thinking seriously about the problem of overtime

and the control of overtime—in other words, work sharing.
Another subject that we must view with a much greater intensity is the whole question of early retirement. Do not we all agree that it is much better that young people should be in work rather than persons over the age of 60? It is important that our debate be placed in a wider context.
I agree with those who have spoken about the problems of agriculture. I represent an agricultural constituency. Through telephone conversations today I am aware that farmers in my area attach great importance, as do the Government, to changes in the way in which farmers pay their taxes, which would help to safeguard the prosperity of farming interests. It is also vital to try to keep down the interest rate structure. One of the few things on which I agree with the Opposition Members is that interest rates are now too high and could come down. A reduction would be of benefit not only to the farmers in our area but to small businesses and businesses generally.
I agree strongly with what the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said about the problem in the South-West still being that of access.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop rose—

Mr. Watkinson: No, I will not give way. I was referring to the former Leader of the Liberal Party. Even though my constituency is bordered by two motorways, there is still difficulty in getting into the area. The access roads and the roads over the River Wye are so narrow that lorries are unable to get in. Firms are being put off coming into my constituency because of the transport difficulties.
I wish to make a passing reference to the textile industry, which is active in my area. The Minister dealt with this problem at length when he spoke in the debate on the North-West. One of the principal employers in the Gloucester area is ICI at Brockworth, and it is under tremendous pressure because of the problems with textiles.
Tourism is an important element in the economy in my constituency. I cannot say that it yields enormous revenues, but it is important both in my area and in the South-West generally. I note from the report prepared by the South-West


planning organisation that the support we get from the English Tourist Board is not nearly as great as that given to Scotland and Wales, yet the area devoted to tourism in our region is equal to that devoted to tourism in those other two countries.
The position of the construction industry has been referred to. There is one point that I hope my right hon. Friend will bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The building societies were to have moved in to replace the mortgage funds which local authorities were no longer able to give in certain areas. This has not happened in my area, and that has ment a serious cutback in the number of houses being built in West Gloucestershire.
I wish to make one point in favour of bureaucracy. A jobcentre was opened in the Lydney area of my constituency and as a result there was an initial increase of 40 per cent. in the number of people finding jobs. That has now settled down at an increase of 20 per cent. above the previous level. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to study the beneficial effects of the jobcentres, because in areas such as our those benefits can be enormous.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. David Mudd: Inevitably we have all had to truncate our speeches tonight, and we have been denied the opportunity of developing our arguments to the full. I had hoped to refer exhaustively to a statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment. I received his agreement that I should use it, but I feel that it would be improper to take up three or four minutes dealing with that item. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not use it tonight but instead use it against him on another occasion, when I shall press the point with increased fervour.
It is misleading to talk about unemployment in terms of percentages. Cornwall is regarded generally as a happy sunshine county where people sit on the kerbstones and eat pasties while sheltering from the sun under large umbrellas. However, Cornwall is facing its gravest unemployment problem in living memory. There are 16,000 people there looking for work. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives

(Mr. Nott), if he had the chance to speak this evening, would explain that his constituency encounters the same trouble. He would have referred to 19· per cent. unemployment in Penzance, 32·4 per cent. male unemployment in St. Ives, and 20·2 per cent. male unemployment in Helston. I can refer to 12 per cent. unemployment in my constituency.
That percentage means that out of 100 men and women in my constituency who have the right to the dignity of work 12 have to stay at home and be deprived of what is a basic right in a civilised country. Against this problem it is not sufficient to be told that the Government are pumping in millions of pounds in job creation and retraining. We want action now.
I speak with particular bitterness. In the early 1950s I sampled unemployment in Falmouth. Attending week after week at the local employment exchange, I met men who told me that in the 1930s when they were boys their fathers pushed them in their prams to this employment ex. change. Then, in the 1950s, they were pushing their children to that same labour exchange. In 1977 the children of the 1950s intake, the grandchildren of the unemployed of the 1930s, are coming up to this continuing spiral, this repetitive cycle of unemployment in Cornwall.
That explains why I want the Government to tackle the problem in two ways. First, they must do all they can to bring about an immediate solution. Secondly, they must reconsider their overall economic strategy for Cornwall. I agree that this will take longer. There is a very straightforward and immediate solution that I can suggest. The crux of the unemployment problem in Cornwall is to be found in the problems of the building and construction industry. This happens at the very time when the greatest social problem in the country is the problem of homelessness. People are crying out for houses and those who could be building the houses are signing on at the employment exchanges. For heaven's sake, could the Government not set the builders to work at the task of providing homes, and two essential needs could be met in one solution.
I urge the Government to have a more leisurely look at Cornwall's problems, and to consider again the rôle of the


service industries. They should consider the potential for the building industry, the educational services, the administrative services and the advancement of decentralised computerisation. I urge the Government not to give their industrial support to helping the bounty hunters who go in search of grants, but to the traditional industries in which we have the skills and which are the back bone of our economy and employment. Imported industry may well complete the picture but it is not the mainstay.
I hope that the Government will let us have specific details about the way in which the selective investment scheme is designed to help applicants in Cornwall. Let us see greater recognition of Cornish producers, who are prepared to meet the demands of exporting their produce. Let us see greater help given to those who reduce imports by providing more goods and services necessary for our own needs. We shall never succeed in getting new industries to replace those that are dying and decaying unless we develop the creative instincts of the businessmen who have the ability to create new outlets and opportunities.
Genuinely new businesses which will satisfy local skills are far more important in terms of security and job opportunity than the regional outposts of the national or multinational organisations. The more the Government can do to encourage people to launch these businesses in Cornwall, the more they will help the nation, and the more they will help to solve the continuing and repetitive cycle of unemployment in our country.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. John Hannam: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) said, this debate is long overdue. Unfortunately, it is too short to allow many of us to develop the theme that we would like to develop—that is, that there is positive discrimination against our region in Government policies. We accept that the overall situation in the country is serious, but we see increasing evidence of discrimination in Government policies affecting our area.
There is a popular misconception that we live in beautiful countryside with a lovely coastline and that most of our time is spent in fleecing tourists. In fact,

we are hardworking people who earn on average £7 a week less than the average industrial wage of the rest of the country. We have increasing evidence now that discrimination has been practised by the switching of resources from housing programmes in the South-West to other areas. The theme I want to develop concerns this switch of resources to the urban stress areas.
The building construction industry is one of the largest employers in Devon and Cornwall—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Was one of the largest.

Mr. Hannam: As my hon. Friend says, it was one of the largest. A year ago I led a delegation of builders, architects and representatives of local authorities and trade unions to No. 10 Downing Street to plead the case for more help to the construction industry in our area. The unemployment rate at that time was 21·8 per cent. in Cornwall and 14·5 per cent. in Devon, with pockets of more than 40 per cent. in some communities. But what did the Government do? Just a few months after that delegation, the Prime Minister announced in July that there would be a major switch of housing resources from our already distressed area to urban stress areas.
The result was that between July and December of last year, of 1,047 dwellings in Devon for which contracts would have been let, only 297 could go ahead. In other words, as a direct result of that one programme introduced by the Government, two-thirds of the Devon building programme went by the board. That information was based on a ministerial reply given to me on 3rd November.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon Friend reaffirm that he is talking of the present Prime Minister and not of Lady Falkender's protégé?

Mr. Hannam: I am, of course, refer. ring to the present Prime Minister, since the event to which I refer happened only in July last year.
When I asked again on 26th January for up-to-date figures to give an indication of the latest situation of the disaster facing our building construction industry, I was informed by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment that no scheme had been cancelled, and that as


to the programme up to 31st March the matter was being discussed with the local authorities. In other words, on this occasion the Government were so afraid of the figures that they would not even announce them in answer to my Question. So much for the open government of which we hear so much from the Secretary of State for Energy.
The facts are that the industry is in a state of collapse and that there are no jobs for many skilled and unskilled workers in the South-West. I understand from the Chairman of the Devon and Cornwall Emergency Committee for Construction that the latest information is that there has been an increase of 23 per cent. in the number of craftsmen unemployed since the last full figures of August 1976. The Department of the Environment in its National Consultative Council's quarterly report in December gave a depressing forecast of a 50 per cent. reduction in work load as against the previous year's already depressed figure. The report continued:
The guarded optimism of last summer was destroyed by the Government's July switch of resources and the next six months will be desperate.
I should like to have given other examples of the discriminatory nature of the Government's policies in respect of the South-West, but I have not the time to do so. We are earning much less in the South-West, and our costs of living are higher than in other parts of the country. For example, a person who lives in the South-West pays 8·1 per cent. more for his coal and electricity than do those in other parts of the country. The inhabitants of the South-West pay more to maintain their standard of living and they face higher transport costs because of the fuel costs in our region. There is evidence that we are a region of high costs and low wages, and we now face the discriminatory policies of a Labour Government.
I conclude by quoting the words of a trade union organiser who lives in my constituency. The man in question came to the House on Monday as part of a trade union delegation protesting at the decision of the Post Office not to carry out certain equipment installations. My constituent ended his letter to me by saying:

To be without work is a social injustice! The biggest injustice of all is for our members to be made redundant because of a cut-back in Post Office spending in the South-West with its very bad record of unemployment. This is, to say the least, an example of the Government's contempt for the people of Devon and Cornwall.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: In the three minutes that are available to me for making my contribution to this debate, I shall briefly touch on two significant statistics.
I wish first to refer to the fact that the South-West is about 1 per cent. of employed persons above the average national unemployment figure. I am concerned at the fact that this trend is expanding. The figure was 1 per cent. above national average in 1976, and this year the figure has risen to 1·1 per cent. That trend is extremely worrying. The Weston-super-Mare area has always been about 2 per cent. above the regional average. The figure is now nearly 11 per cent. for men.
It was once said that Weston-super-Mare was a nice place in which to be unemployed. An hon. Gentleman on the Government side said that in seaside towns there was therefore artificial unemployment. In January 1974 there were 292 vacancies in Weston-super-Mare. This year there were only 76, and most of them were for skilled men. There is no longer any artificial unemployment in seaside towns in the South-West or anywhere else.
What is being done to help young people who leave school and who are apparently not prepared, or in some cases not even clever enough—this deeply concerns me—to start doing even the most basic artisan training, whether in building, engineering or anything else? They seem unwilling and, frequently, incapable of taking on this task.
I mentioned to the Minister in an intervention the problem created in areas such as my constituency by nearby development areas. In our case the development area is South Wales, which seems to receive a substantial part of our national resources in almost every field to, I assume, the disadvantage of our region. My companies and industries have to compete on grossly distorted terms with those other parts of the country.


Listening to the debate, and taking into account what the Minister said about empty advance factories, I wondered whether the regional employment premium and other such forms of assistance have been truly effective and whether we should not seek a different way of helping areas of high unemployment.
A young man who came to my interview session on Saturday had done well for himself. He had come off the shop floor and he was a sales engineer. He had worked for a company for a year and a half before receiving his notice. He pounded my desk and said: "Will you somehow tell the Government that it is the actions of the Government in taxation, legislation and general discouragement that have put my company in a position that means that I have to be laid off?" I told the young man that I should make that point tonight. There are thousands of young men like him in the South-West.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. James Prior: I agree wholeheartedly with what my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has just said. A number of the measures that the Government have taken over the last three years have contributed enormously to the problems that the country would be facing in any case. The Employment Protection Act, lack of incentive and fear of capital taxation are affecting small businesses, and if small businesses do not run properly in such parts of the country as the extreme South-West there will be no businesses there at all.
People such as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) do more damage to employment prospects than is done by anybody else. They frighten businesses and they frighten people from starting in business. They drive initiative out of the country.
Talking about hypocrisy, I shall quote some real hypocrisy from the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) just before the October 1974 General Election. He said:
We will not have our own people out of work … unemployment represents the difference between our two parties.
He can say that again. It does indeed represent the difference between our two

parties. Since that time unemployment has more than doubled, and in many parts of the far West it has trebled.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) fairly pointed out, every person out of work is a man who is losing dignity and respect for himself. It does not matter about the percentages. We know that the percentages are high, but the number of people unemployed is also high.
I was disappointed by the Minister's speech, because although he opened the debate with a speech of conciliation and care he had no new ideas. If I were writing a report, I should say that he was good on analysis and emotion but short on remedies. One of the things I should do, and which has been concentrated upon in the debate, is to develop the traditional interests of the area more than has been done previously. The Minister talked about the area being mostly a manufacturing one, but if he goes into Devon and Cornwall he will find that manufacturing is bound up with agriculture and fishing. We cannot have agricultural and fishing areas which do not feed and feed off processing and other ancillary industries. That is an important point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) said, we are seeing a retrenchment in the agriculture industry, and that will affect employment prospects.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said that there was no disagreement about the end but only about the means. We do not believe that the policies pursued by the Government in the past three years are the answer to the nation's problems. They are proved not to be working because the situation is getting worse.
Let us help small industries more and give them the support they need, let us give the self-employed a chance to take on extra people, and let us support the traditional industries of the area. Above all, let us tell people such as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West to shut up once and for all, because they are doing damage all round.

9.46 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I commiserate with hon. Members who have not been able to catch your eye,


Mr. Speaker, or who, because of the limitation of time, have not been able to participate in the debate. I was astonished to hear the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) suggest that the answer to the problems of the South-West was to develop the traditional industries of agriculture and fisheries. A few moment's reflection will make it clear that, because of the size of the problem and the numbers of people unemployed, it is inconceivable that merely building up agriculture and fisheries would remedy the problems.
The House will understand that I cannot answer all the points made in the debate in the short time available to me. I shall do my best and I shall give careful consideration to those points upon which I do not touch and, where appropriate, I shall bring them to the attention of other Ministers.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) on his appearance at the Dispatch Box and I am sure that he will be there again, but I am astonished that he chose this debate to attack the Government's policy on inner cities and seemed to brush aside in a cavalier fashion the serious problems emerging in major conurbations such as London and Liverpool. He seemed to sneer at the Goverment's concern and our attempts to remedy those problems. I think that he and the hon. Members who supported him will have to live with that for some time to come. I hope that I am not correct, but I must assume that his view is a reflection of the official Opposition attitude.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the House for the whole of the debate.

Mr. Boscawen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to say that I have not been in the House for the whole of the debate when I have been sitting here for every single moment of it?

Mr. Walker: If that is the case, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I beg his pardon if I have done him an injustice and readily give way to him.

Mr. Boscawen: The Minister says that he does not understand the resentment felt in rural areas about the substantial transfer of resources from those areas to innercities. That is a point which must be got home to him.

Mr. Walker: That was not the point that was made by the hon. Member for Bodmin. If he intended to make that point, he did not express it in those terms. The hon. Member might care to look in Hansard tomorrow to see what he said.
I now turn to the specific points made by a number of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Bodmin raised the question of withdrawing the regional employment premium. When deciding on the withdrawal of REP the Government had to take into account that the value of payment has been eroded by inflation and the proposed harmonisation of rates for men and women. In the current economic situation a considerable increase would have been required to restore the original value of the premium. In the present circumstances that is not on. I am sure that the House will understand that.
At its existing value it is doubtful whether the premium was achieving its original purpose of generating and maintaining employment in the regions. Owing to the non-selective nature of the payments, a large proportion of the money was going to firms that would have stayed in the area anyway. We thought that it was better to use the available money in a more cost-effective and selective way.
We have decided to make an additional £80 million available in each of the next two years for further selective assistance for industry. That will enable a new selective assistance scheme to be introduced. It will make available more money for the National Enterprise Board and for selective schemes designed to improve certain industries.

Mr. Peter Emery: Will the Minister try to ensure that assistance is given to pockets of unemployment in areas that are not development, or assisted areas that are sometimes only towns that at present get nothing?

Mr. Walker: I understand that request, because assistance under Section


7 of the Industry Act is limited to assisted areas. I shall draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Industry to that because I know that it has been put to him on several occasions. The representation made by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) will reinforce those that have been made already.
I return to regional employment premium. I do not want to make a political point, but I remind the House that the Conservative Party opposite when in office indicated a firm intention to withdraw REP. Recipients have therefore had two years that they did not expect in which to draw the premium.
Agriculture is another important industry in the area. Because of the time I can say little about it. But we recognise the importance of agriculture to the economy as a whole. It is one of the country's major industries and in the South-West it makes a particularly important contribution to economic activity.
Despite the set-backs suffered last year, mainly because of the drought, the prospects and profitability in the industry as a whole are reasonable. Given normal weather, net profits should recover in 1977-78. The House will be gratified that a Minister from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been present during the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) raised the problem facing the textile industry, among other matters. I shall not go into detail about that subject because when we had a debate on the North-West on 3rd February I dealt in detail with the present position and the Government's response to it. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied to read that debate in Hansard.
The aerospace industry is important in the South-West, particularly in Bristol and Gloucester. Again, this is a major industry that is facing difficulties, but there are signs that the market for civil airlines will pick up soon. The Government are anxious that the industry should share in the profit that this revival will bring. I stress the importance of reaching a decision about the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. I shall not say anything about what has been hap-

pening in the other half of the building, except to express concern that the interests of many thousands of workers are at stake. Neither their Lordships nor anyone else in Parliament should play around with the future of those workers.
Likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) has a strong constituency interest in the footwear industry. He will know that the report of the Footwear Study Group is in the final stages of preparation. A decision on publication will be taken when the report is complete.
I should like to say something about another matter that was raised by a number of right hon. and hon. Members—roads. Good communications, we recognise, are crucial to the South-West—as to everywhere, but perhaps more particularly so here. Good progress appears to have been made. The M5 is open as far as Exeter. Traffic can move into the South-West by motorway from the extreme north-east or north-west of the country. The last section, which will bypass Exeter, should open in the spring. From there the A38 dual carriageway trunk road runs on to Plymouth, and the A30, the shortest way from Devon to Cornwall, is being comprehensively improved.
A major proposal, to which the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorp) referred, is the road link with the M5 to North Devon. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is currently considering a submission from Devon County Council, which has been reinforced, I understand, by other right hon. and hon. Members. My right hon. Friend will give full weight to the potential contribution that this road development could make to the development of the region when he is assessing its merits. Certainly I shall ensure that all the remarks made in the debate on this subject are drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention.
I should like briefly to touch on a point raised by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). That was defence cuts and, in particular, the defence cut that affects his constituency of Taunton where, as he rightly pointed out, nearly 400 jobs will be lost. However, I think that I am entitled to draw his attention to the fact that the major part of the job losses, as I understand it,


will not occur anyhow until 1980–81. Some, it is true, will occur in 1977, but as I understand it the major burden of redundancies will take place in 1980–81, so there is a breathing space and an opportunity for some wastage to take place.
It is a matter of great regret that a very important matter to which I had hoped to have time to refer to more fully is small firms. Member after Member, on both sides of the House, has expressed his anxiety about small firms. That anxiety is shared by the Government. I think that we have done more than any previous Government to reflect that anxiety for small firms. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), has been present during most of the debate. He has special ministerial responsibility for small firms, and the House will know the vigour with which he is carrying out his responsibility.
Among other things that we have done is the introduction of a pilot counselling service in the South-West. I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary opened it in November last year. He has also brought into operation a scheme to encourage small firms to consider collaboration in areas of mutual interest,

and thereby to cut overheads and to increase productivity.

As I said in the debate a fortnight ago, large firms, too, can help small firms. One of the big problems facing small firms is the shortening of credit terms and the growing practice of bigger firms to try to improve their own liquidity by delaying the payment of small firms' bills. I hope that big firms will see themselves as having some responsibility to help small firms.

My final point is that it is a surprising fact that, notwithstanding the rise in unemployment, and the proper and legitimate concern about that, over the last five years the number of jobs and the number of people in employment in the South-West have actually grown. In 1971 there were 1,429,000 people in employment there. In 1976, the number was 1,517,000. In other words—and this in no way diminishes our concern about unemployment, nor about the hardship that it causes—this suggests that there are demographic factors that are influencing the level of unemployment.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 275.

Division No. 78.]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Channon, Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Aitken, Jonathan
Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Alison, Michael
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Forman, Nigel


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Arnold, Tom
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fox, Marcus


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Clegg, Walter
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; S')


Awdry, Daniel
Cockcroft, John
Freud, Clement


Baker, Kenneth
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fry, Peter


Beith, A. J.
Cope, John
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Bell, Ronald
Cordle, John H.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Cormack, Patrick
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Corrie, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Benyon, W.
Costain, A. P.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Berry, Hon Anthony
Critchley, Julian
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Biffen, John
Crouch, David
Goodhart, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Blaker, Peter
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Goodlad, Alastair


Body, Richard
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gorst, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gower, Slr Raymond (Barry)


Bottomley, Peter
Drayson, Burnaby
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bowden, A, (Brighton, Kemptown)
du Cann,Rt Hon Edward
Gray, Hamish


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Durant, Tony
Grieve, Percy


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dykes, Hugh
Griffiths, Eldon


Brittan, Leon
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Grist, Ian


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grylls, Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Elliott, Sir William
Hall, Sir John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Emery, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eyre, Reginald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Buck, Antony
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nick
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hannam, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Farr, John
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Burden, F. A.
Fell, Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hastings, Stephen


Carlisle, Mark
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Havers, Sir Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Hayhoe, Barney




Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrovs)
Scott, Nicholas


Hicks, Robert
Mills, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Higgins, Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hodgson, Robin
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shepherd, Colin


Holland, Philip
Monro, Hector
Shersby, Michael


Hordern, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Silvester, Fred


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Sims, Roger


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morgan, Geraint
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hurd, Douglas
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Speed, Keith


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Spence, John


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


James, David
Mudd, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Neave, Airey
Sproat, Iain


Jessel, Toby
Nelson, Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Neubert, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Nott, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jopling, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stokes, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Kimball, Marcus
Page, Richard (Workington)
Tapsell, Peter


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Parkinson, Cecil
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pattie, Geoffrey
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Penhaligon, David
Tebbit, Norman


Knox, David
Percival, Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Pink, R. Bonner
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Lawrence, Ivan
Price, David (Eastlelgh)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Le Merchant, Spencer
Prior, Rt Hon James
Townsend, Cyril D.


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Trotter, Neville


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Raison, Timothy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lloyd, Ian
Rathbone, Tim
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Loveridge, John
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Viggers, Peter


Luce, Richard
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


McCrindle, Robert
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Macfarlane, Neil
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wall, Patrick


MacGregor, John
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Walters, Dennis


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Ridsdale, Julian
Weatherill, Bernard


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wells, John


Madel, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wiggin, Jerry


Marten, Neil
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mates, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wood,Rt Hon Richard


Maude, Angus
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Younger, Hon George


Mawby, Ray
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)



Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Royle, Sir Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mayhew, Patrick
Sainsbury, Tim
Mr Nigel Lawson and


Meyer, Sir Anthony
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Mr Carol Mather




NOES


Abse, Leo
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Allaun, Frank
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Archer, Peter
Campbell, Ian
Deakins, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Canavan, Dennis
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Ashley, Jack
Cant, R. B.
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Ashton, Joe
Carmichael, Neil
Dempsey, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Carter, Ray
Doig, Peter


Atkinson, Norman
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dormand, J. D.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cartwright, John
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Clemitson, Ivor
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, James A.


Bates, Alf
Cohen, Stanley
Dunnett, Jack


Bean, R. E.
Coleman, Donald
Edge, Geoff


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Concannon, J. D.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bidwell, Sydney
Conlan, Bernard
English, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ennals, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Corbett, Robin
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Boardman, H.
Cowans, Harry
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Evans, John (Newton)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Crawshaw, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Bradley, Tom
Cronln, John
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cryer, Bob
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Buchan, Norman
Davidson, Arthur
Ford, Ben


Buchanan, Richard
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Forrester, John







Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Roper, John


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Freeson, Reginald
McCartney, Hugh
Ryman, John


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sedgemore, Brian


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McElhone, Frank
Selby, Harry


George, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Gilbert, Dr John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Ginsburg, David
MacKenzie, Gregor
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Golding, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Gould, Bryan
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Gourley, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Sillars, James


Graham, Ted
McNamara, Kevin
Silverman, Julius


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Grant, John (Islington C)
Magee, Bryan
Small, William


Grocott, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth
Snape, Peter


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marquand, David
Spearing, Nigel


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, Rt Hon, M. (Fulham)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stoddart, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Hooley, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Strang, Gavin


Horam, John
Mendelson, John
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Swain, Thomas


Huckfield, Les
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Molloy, William
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Moonman, Eric
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tierney, Sydney


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Moyle, Roland
Tomlinson, John


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Torney, Tom


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Newens, Stanley
Tuck, Raphael


Janner, Greville
Noble, Mike
Urwin, T. W.


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Oakes, Gordon
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Halloran, Michael
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


John, Brynmor
Orbach, Maurice
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ovenden, John
Ward, Michael


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Watkins, David


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Padley, Walter
Weetch, Ken


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur
Weitzman, David


Judd, Frank
Park, George
Wellbeloved, James


Kelley, Richard
Parker, John
White, James (Pollak)


Kerr, Russell
Pavitt, Laurie
Whitehead, Phillip


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Pendry, Tom
Whitlock, William


Kinnock, Neil
Perry, Ernest
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lambie, David
Phipps, Dr Colin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Lamborn, Harry
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lamond, James
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Leadbitter, Ted
Radice, Giles
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Lee, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lipton, Marcus
Robinson, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton E)


Litterick, Tom
Roderick, Caerwyn



Loyden, Eddie
Rodgers, George (Charley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Luard, Evan
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Mr A W Stallard and


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Rooker, J. W.
Mr Frank R White

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH RAILWAYS (COMPENSATION)

10.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I beg to move,
That the British Railways Board (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th January 1977, be approved.
The purpose of the order is straightforward and simple. It is to release the second tranche of compensation which the Secretary of State may pay to the British Railways Board for the operation of its passenger railway system. Under Section 3 of the Railways Act 1974, the amount of compensation is limited in the first instance to £900 million, but it Provides for that limit to be increased to £1,500 million by Order in Council subject to approval by resolution of this House. This is accordingly the order envisaged by the 1974 Act.
It may help hon. Members if I remind them briefly of the pattern of Government support for the railways system and explain how these limits of £900 million and £1,500 million apply. The Government support the railways in four different ways. They pay compensation for the operation of the rail passenger system; they pay half of the costs of level crossings on public highways; they make payments towards meeting the inherited pensions liabilities of the Railways Board; and they pay interim support for the rail freight business, which hon. Members are considering in the context of the Transport (Financial Provisions) Bill. In addition, of course, local authorities— mainly the metropolitan counties in England and Strathclyde in Scotland—make payments to British Rail, through their Passenger Transport Executives, for rail passenger services to meet local needs. It is only the first of these—Compensation for the operation of the rail passenger system—that concerns us now.
Hon. Members will recall that the Railways Act 1974 introduced a new system of support for the passenger railway. Section 3 of the Act enables the Secretary of State, as the competent authority in Great Britain, to impose a general obligation on the Railways Board, under EEC Regulation 1191 of 1969, to

operate its rail passenger system. This regulation is designed to prevent distortion of competition between railways and other modes of transport, both within and between member States. When we became members of the Community, the regulation became applicable to this country, and the provisions of the 1974 Act reflect this. The same regulation requires the Secretary of State to compensate the Railways Board for the net cost of carrying out the obligation thereby imposed.
It fell to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) the then Minister for Transport, to consider the nature of the public service obligation which should be imposed on the British Railways Board. The House will recall that, if there is any objection to the closure of a rail passenger service, it cannot be withdrawn by the Railways Board without the specific consent of the Secretary of State after going through the prescribed statutory processes. It was not, therefore, necessary to specify in detail which services should be provided. My right hon. Friend also concluded that it would be impractical to specify precisely such matters of railway operation as the frequency with which services should be run or the quality of service that should be provided. He therefore gave the following general direction: that the British Railways Board shall operate its railway passenger system so as
to Provide a public service … which is comparable generally with that provided by the board at present."—[Official Report, 19th December 1974; Vol. 883, c. 607.]
That was in December 1974. From 1st January 1975, Clause 39 of the 1968 Transport Act, under which the Secretary of State made grants to the Board for individual unremunerative passenger services, ceased to have effect, and instead the Board was required to make a claim for an annual grant of compensation for carrying out the obligation that had been imposed on it.
When the 1974 Railways Bill was published the Government estimated that the compensation needed would average about £300 million per year. It was hoped that the £1,500 million provided in the Bill would last for five years, but it was thought prudent to allow the House to have the opportunity of deciding, after the first £900 million had been paid,


whether the further £600 million should then be made available to the Board.
In the first year of the new system, 1975, the payment to the Board was just short of the £300 million. On 30th June 1975 my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment, announced that the Board would be expected to contain its requirements for passenger support in 1976 within the 1975 level in real terms. After allowing for the effect of inflation, that set a ceiling of £335 million. The Board's claim for compensation for that year, 1975, which is still subject to some adjustments, although I expect those to be very small, was for £312 million, well within the ceiling—and in real terms well within £300 million at 1974 money values.
For 1977 the Board has again been told that it will be expected to keep its requirement for support within a cash ceiling. But, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced on 15th December, this year's support ceiling will be reduced. It would have been based on the standstill level set out in last year's public expenditure White Paper, Cmnd 6393; that is, the same as for 1975 and 1976 in real terms. But on 15th December, following my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on reductions in public expenditure, my right hon. Friend announced a £15 million reduction in current cash terms in payments to British Rail for 1977, of which most must fall on the passenger system. The ceiling this year will thus be £375 million—equivalent to £292 million at 1975 money values. I am happy to say that the Board's provisional claim for compensation is within that figure, and the Board has shown a good record in keeping within the ceiling.
However, as we can see, although not increasing in real terms, the claims for compensation have been increasing in money terms because of the rate of inflation. It will be evident to hon. Members from the figures I have just given that the total amount of support for passenger operation paid since 1974 is likely during the course of this year to exceed the £900 million provided by Parliament. So we come now to the point, envisaged when the 1974 Act was passed, when we must seek this House's

approval to the extension of the limit of compensation to £1,500 million as provided for in section 3 of the Act.
I have spoken of the amounts of compensation paid to British Rail in some detail, because I think it is important that the House should be aware of the success that the Chairman of the Board, his predecessor and their colleagues have had in keeping to the financial targets set them by the Government. I suggest to the House that the figures show, too, that the Government themselves have been able to control the amount of support for the rail passenger system, and that the Act continues to provide a generally satisfactory legislative framework for a good working relationship between the Government and British Rail.
But £300 million a year or more in current prices is a great deal of money for taxpayers at large to go on paying each year in subsidy. The money has been spent, of course, in support of the 700 million passenger journeys made each year by rail, for the subsidy relates to the entire passenger railway and not to parts of it.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I apologise for interrupting the flow of the Minister's speech. He is seeking permission to spend an extra £600 million. How long precisely does he expect that £600 million to last?

Mr. Horam: As I have pointed out, the Board has more than met its obligations under the Act. In real terms it has spent less than the £300 million each year which was provided for under the 1974 Act. I would therefore think that the extra £600 million would last a full two years more. It is quite remarkable; few Governments have achieved that degree of accuracy in their forecasting, and it is a credit to the British Railways Board.
The previous Administration carried out a review of rail policy in 1973. This review concluded that no viable passenger railway network could be identified. The House accepted this view when it debated the 1974 Railways Bill. It agreed that if we wanted a passenger railway system we had to subsidise it. Nothing has happened since then which would lead the Government to take a different view.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the West German Government grant £2,500 million a year subsidy to the German railways, in the last year the German railways are still showing a deficit even after receiving that subsidy?

Mr. Horam: In this respect it seems that we have actually out-performed the Germans. It is a credit to the British Railways Board. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a mine of information on these matters.
In paying compensation to the Board, we require it to calculate its costs and its earnings for the passenger system as a whole. The difference, very broadly, is the amount of compensation.
Hon. Members may ask: where, then, are the incentives to the chairman and his colleagues to minimise their claim for Government support? There are two. Firstly, we are not paying an open-ended deficit subsidy. The claim for support is derived from the Board's management budget and settled early in each year for payment by instalments during that year. There is only limited scope for adjustment thereafter, to allow for previously defined circumstances outside the Board's control such as the effects of changes in taxation. Having budgeted to allow for a certain amount of Government support, within a ceiling, the Board must manage within its budget.
Secondly, there is a cash ceiling on the amount of compensation. Given that the size of the system, and the broad level and quality of service, is determined by the public service obligation laid upon the Board, there is a powerful incentive to all railwaymen to reduce costs by increasing efficiency and productivity.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar (Belper): Does my hon. Friend also agree that there is a powerful obligation on the Board to perform that public services? In view of the correspondence that we have had on the subject of what the British Railways Board intends to do in my part of the country, will he impress on the Board that when hon. Members on this side of the House support the additional money we expect the Board to pay considerable attention to representations on behalf of constituents who will be cut off from rail transport if the plans go ahead in the East Midlands?

Mr. Horam: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's assiduity in pursuing the transport needs of his constituents. He has not only written to me about speed limits and rural buses but has also been in correspondence about particular rural services which may be withdrawn. I well understand my hon. Friend's concern. In the first instance this is a matter for the British Railways Board, although any closure has to come to the Secretary of State before it can go through.
Anyone who looks at the continued downward trend of railway manpower will see evidence of that increased efficiency. It is to the great credit of the unions as well as management that that has been achieved so harmoniously.
In closing, I would like to quote what my right hon. Friend said in the debate on the Second Reading of the Railways Bill:
I do not claim that the arrangements will turn out to be perfect or, indeed, provide a lasting solution to the perennial railway problem, but I do justifiably claim that the support being provided gives the railways a better deal than they ever had in the past … and gives the community a fair return in social and environmental terms for the financial support they must have to remain in existence".—[Official Report, 24th June 1974; Vol. 875, Col. 1014.]
I suggest that the arrangements have stood the test of two hard years remarkably well and provide a sound framework for developing the relationship between Government and the railways in the near future. I am confident that the House will endorse that view and agree that the limit on compensation payable to the Board for the passenger system should be increased from £900 million to £1,500 million to allow us to continue that development through to 1979.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: It is a curious feature of our procedures in this House that we often spend a whole day debating Government proposals for the expenditure of £10 million or £15 million, yet here we have a measure envisaging expenditure of £600 million and we are allowed only one and a half hours after 10 o'clock to debate it. Even this is an improvement on the Government's original intention, which was that it should be taken in Standing Committee and not on the Floor of the House at all.


Apparently, the order, with all its implications for railway policy, does not merit the intervention, let alone the presence, of the Secretary of State for Transport. I say that because I suggest that the very need for this debate reveals a position which cannot fail to be of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The draft order comes before us as a direct result of the Railways Act 1974. That became law at the end of 1974. The Act made grants available to British Railways to a total of £900 million and provided that, when that amount was used up, the Government could come back to the House to seek permission to make available a further £600 million, which is what the Government are doing now.
British Railways will have used up the first grant of £900 million in the next few months. The chances are that the next £600 million will have been used up by 1979. Thus, the position is that British Railways will have gone through £1,500 million in less than five years. But that is not the sum total of the support going to the railways. In addition, there is the freight deficit, there are the pension liabilities, and there is the amount provided for investment. So, by any measure, we are discussing massive sums.
Yet even that is not the full story. As the railway subsidy has increased—and I thought that the Minister might have mentioned this—so, too, have railway fares. Over the past two years fares have doubled, hitting hardest the commuter who must use the railway to get to work. The Government seem to regard commuters as the affluent middle class. I suggest that that is an absurd generalisation and that most commuters have moved out of London for one major reason, which is cheaper housing.
What is more, rural passengers generally and commuters in particular have been hit hard and hit twice. As passengers they have been hit by increased fares. As taxpayers they have been hit by increased taxes.
Although the Opposition do not intend to divide the House on the order, it would be a grave mistake for either the Government or British Railways to believe that we are satisfied with the position as it

stands today. We should remember just how quickly it has deteriorated since the House debated the Railways Bill, and, frankly, we are not prepared to accept the implication in a number of the Minister's remarks that the railways have achieved some great triumphs over the past few years.
When the House debated the Railways Bill, right hon. and hon. Members had before them the 1972 Annual Report of the British Railways Board. At that time, grants were being made by the Government and, to a much lesser extent, by passenger transport executives for the operation of specific unremunerative passenger services. In 1972 those grants totalled £68 million. In 1975 the position was that the passenger deficit as recorded in British Rail's accounts was no less than £321 million. But what was just as serious as the amount of the deficit was that it was no longer clear just how that vast amount was being spent. The Act had changed the system of support. No longer were the separate services separately identified. Support was on a blanket basis. The net result today is that we are spending millions more but with much less information about the areas in which the money is spent. Whatever may have been the arguments in the past on this specific point, I hope that the Government will recognise that the new system introduced by the 1974 Act has proved to be unsatisfactory.
I make no party point. Both parties have joined in the system that has been produced. It is incumbent upon the Government to recognise that the new system is unsatisfactory. It is a situation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) warned the House about when she spoke on Second Reading in in 1974. Her warnings have proved correct.
We shall very soon need new legislation for railway support. Doubtless that will be part of the Government's new Transport Bill. As I have said before, I believe that there is an overwhelming case for achieving as much agreement as possible between the Government and the Opposition on railway policy, but if the Government are to carry our support we must have a financial system that provides Parliament and the public with the maximum information. The present position is that we spend more and more on


railway support and know less and less about the finances and the economics of the railways.
That is a fundamental omission for two main reasons. First, it makes it impossible for the Government to take decisions and set policy. No doubt the sensible way of proceeding is for the Government to make contributions to the services that they decide should be supported, but that does not mean that all services should receive support. For example, the inter-city services are naturally viable and have considerable advantages over the competing mode of air transport on grounds of cost and safety. A contra-example is that of some commuter services. The problems of the two peaks often make it impossible for British Rail to break even. But to give specific support for specific services means that we need information on the services that British Rail says no longer exists.
British Rail says on the one hand that it has produced a plan in response to the consultation document that envisages 7½ per cent. real increases in commuter fares, yet it says that it is unable to operate commuter services in a way that will enable it
to cover an equivalent of their full allocated costs.
But what is the basis of that calculation? Hitherto British Rail has said that no separate costs of that sort are kept. The point was made in a response to the consultation document. The responding organisation stated:
that the absence of any precise definition of the term 'allocated costs' precludes proper consideration of this question.
That was not the response of a commuter organisation but the official response of the Labour Party organisation from Transport House.
Not only is the system inadequate for the purposes of the Government. It is inadequate for the passengers, who are simply not provided with the information which they have the right to expect. The second reason is that if we believe that Parliament should monitor policies and major decisions of the Government and nationalised industries, again it must follow that the information we have at the moment is sadly deficient. As I suggested on the Second Reading of the

Transport (Financial Provisions) Bill, I believe that the railway problem in this country is probably misstated. It is probably more of a rail freight problem, and, therefore, subsequently, less of a rail passenger problem than the accounts indicate.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Will the hon. Gentleman help us before he gets us lost in these details?

Mr. Fowler: When I give way to the hon. Gentleman he may take up the point. I will give way to him in a moment.
Here again the 1974 Act has obscured the position by allowing freight to operate on what even the consultation document describes as a "favourable accounting basis". It is that rail freight business bears track and signalling costs only on lines which it uses exclusively. When it shares such lines with the passenger business it is the passenger business which bears that cost.

Mr. Leadbitter: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument because much that he says appeals to me. But I understand that the draft instrument is recommending that we comply with EEC Documents Nos. 1191 and 1192, both of which I disagree with. The House has agreed, however, to obey Common Market directives. I understood the Minister to say that the £600 million increase from £900 million had already been provided. Would it not, therefore, be more appropriate to raise the detailed questions of finance at another stage since we are here dealing with the provisions of the instrument?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is profoundly wrong. If he goes back to the Second Reading debate on the Railways Act 1974 he will see that my right hon. Friend, now the Leader of the Opposition, raised this specific and important point. The EEC regulations, however, allow the Government to decide on the method of support which they will use. It is open to the Government to use the existing system of blanket subsidy. It is also open for them to use an alternative method which would be much more akin to the provisions of the 1968 Act.
Certainly the 1974 Act received the support of both sides of the House, but


in this last stage of it I think that we must consider the lessons for the future. That is why I think that in all probability this is the crucial question that the House must consider. The present method of finance for the services provided is a highly favourable basis for the freight side. It is highly questionable whether it is fair to the passenger business or to competing modes of transport. What arguments are used to defend that position? Only one is used—that it is difficult to distinguish between the costs of the passenger services and the costs of the freight services. The argument is that there are so many joint costs that it is impossible to differentiate between them.
I would not accept that position. In the United States costs are apportioned between Amtrak, the passenger side, and Conrail, the freight side. If either of these runs over the track of the private railroad companies, as they do, there is an accounting system by which they are charged a fair price for the use of that track. Not only did we once have a system involving separate costs, in this country but much of the information needed already exists. It would not be difficult to distinguish between passengers and freight. In the rail workshops separate accounts are already kept. Operating costs of terminals are split between the passenger and freight businesses. Even with track and signalling costs—said to be the most difficult aspect—separate accounts are kept distinguishing the costs.
I emphasise the crucial nature of this division. In 1975 track and signalling costs totalled £273 million. If too much of that is loaded on to the passenger business, it should come as no surprise when its accounts look disastrously bad.
We Conservatives believe emphatically in the future of the railway industry in this country. Some of the services run by British Rail are as good as any in the world. But the future of the industry lies not just in the hands of the Government but with those who work in the industry as well. The British Rail Board has said that improvements in productivity are possible, and that the number of staff can be reduced by 40,000 by 1981, not by massive redundancies but by natural

wastage and control of recruitment. That opportunity should be taken.
Equally, it should be realised that a wages explosion would have a disastrous effect on fares. About 67 per cent. of British Rail's costs are labour costs. Like every other comparable passenger service, the industry is labour-intensive, and a massive wage increase means a massive fares increase. I hope that we have learned that from the experiences of 1974 and 1975.
I do not pretend for one moment that the Government generally or the British Rail Board have an easy task over the next few years. The Government have made clear that no more money is available beyond the level of support that is now being given. We support that position, and we do not seek to make capital out of it. We should remember, however, that the level at which the Government are seeking to stabilise the position is historically a record high.
We expect more from the Government. We expect new legislation to give a much clearer picture of the financial position for the benefit of Parliament, the public, and, particularly, the passenger. We want an efficient railway industry and a period of stability during which the most important person in that industry—the passenger—can hope for an escape from the nightmare of ever-increasing fares.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: It is in the nature of your office, Mr. Speaker, that you have to listen to a large number of debates in this Chamber. You will, therefore, be aware that the nationalised industries come in for a great deal of criticism in this House, particularly when we are debating a proposal which increases the amount of resources to be made available to one of these industries. It is particularly appropriate that when a nationalised industry has kept within the limits set by the House we should give due recognition to the fact and congratulate it on achieving its target.
I found the remarks of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) less than generous. That fact is that in 1974 the House approved a figure of £300 million per annum as the passenger service obligation for British Rail in the


succeeding five years, and British Rail has stayed within that target in real terms for each of the last three years. We may differ as to the extent to which that represents a real effort and achievement by British Rail, but the fact remains that industry has kept within the targets set by the House.

Mr. Norman Fowler: But no target was set in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests. Indeed, the Ministers of the day were emphatic in not giving that kind of target. They certainly did not give the five-year target of £300 million per annum of which the hon. Gentleman spoke.

Mr. Cook: The 1974 Act was passed on the clear understanding that there was a maximum figure of £300 million per annum for the consolidated passenger service obligation, and the fact remains that British Rail has stayed within that target.
I found a little curious the hon. Gentleman's reference to fare increases in the past three years. It is not self-evident that if there had not been an increase in fares in that period, the passenger service obligation would be even greater? Surely, if there had been no such increases we would now have been debating an even larger increase.
Some Labour Members, including myself, feel that the fare increases in the last three years have been so large as to be counterproductive and have resulted in traffic losses. Yet their size was largely because—as Mr. Richard Marsh said when he left British Rail—the last Conservative Government had interfered when he wanted to increase fares. They did not allow him to make any increases in 1973, and in 1972 allowed him only half the amount of the increase he proposed. That was one of the reasons for the large increases in the last two or three years.
In listening to some Opposition Members, one might be forgiven for thinking that they are under the delusion that British Rail is unique in not running a profitable railway industry. The truth is far different. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) in the debate on transport policy a few weeks ago said that we in Britain do not take sufficient pride in the achievements of British Rail. He made that remark hav-

ing recently visited European countries whose railways register a far larger deficit than those to which we are accustomed in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield had taken the trouble to spend five minutes or so in the Library consulting Jane's World Railways, he would have seen in the foreword:
Few but the incurably optimistic can have expected railways to do anything but barely keep afloat on a deepening sea of red ink through 1975.
If he looks at the figures he will see that there is a "deepening sea of red ink" in many other nations. Last year West Germany gave its railways subsidies amounting to £3,000 million. The French Railways had record deficits in 1974 and 1975. Even in Japan, about whose modern and progressive railway system we are always hearing, the deficit last year amounted to 160,000 million yen. I cannot translate that figure into pounds, but I gather that it is a pretty large deficit.

Mr. Atkins: The subsidy in Japan works out at about £2½ thousand million per year.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for translating yen into pounds in such lightning fashion. Therefore, in comparison with the sums registered in other countries, the sums sought by British Rail are modest.
One of the reasons for that is the contributions made to running a railway by the efforts of the staff. It was, again, less than generous of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that the only reference that he made to the employees of the railway industry was to mention that a massive wage rise would prejudice the finances of British Rail. He did not say anything about the contribution made by the employees of the industry to British Rail's very good figures—which compare well with those of railways of other nations. Indeed, the manpower of British Rail have made their contribution to the industry staying within the £300 million target that we are discussing tonight.
There is no other industry that has faced a reduction in manpower comparable to that of British Rail—a loss of 400,000 men since nationalisation. It has one-third of the manpower that it had in 1945. Yet when we were debating


the matter less than three weeks ago, hon. Members opposite said that it was unfortunate that the rate of reduction in manpower had slowed down during the past decade. It is as well that the rate of loss has slowed, because if the rate of loss in the past decade had been as great as in the preceding one we should not have any railwaymen left at all. Nevertheless in the past year, 7,000 posts have been slimmed from British Rail's manpower with the full co-operation of the unions representing the employees of that industry. On that basis, we are well within the target of a reduction of 40,000 jobs by 1980 that was set by the Chairman of British Rail.
There would, perhaps, be some justice in thinking that the process has gone too far. The average working week of British Rail employees is 52 hours, which is substantially higher than the average in industry generally. BR employees work 40 per cent. of their rest days. Guards work 68 per cent.—a figure that compares unfavourably with any other occupation except perhaps our own profession.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made a tangential reference to massive wage increases. No doubt he was referring to the figures that were reported the other day. I would bring to his notice a figure that was tucked down in the columns of that report. It is a figure of £36 million that represents not the cost to British Rail of any increases in wages or additional payments but the cost of consolidating within the basic wage the awards given in the two years under the statutory incomes policy. That represents the addition costs of paying, on the basis of that consolidated wage, for the overtime worked. When we have an industry that faces a potential addition to its wages bill of £36 million simply in consolidating wages and paying existing hours worked in overtime, we must say that the problem is not one of overmanning but that there are not sufficient workers around to keep down the rate of overtime and the rate at which rest days are worked.
Whatever view one takes of that, the manpower of British Rail has made a substantial contribution to keeping within the target that the House has set. The House should give British Rail employees

recognition for that and due congratulations.
I do not necessarily regard the 1974 Act as the most satisfactory way in which to finance British Rail. Indeed, in fairness to British Rail, it has never regarded the Act in that way itself. On page 33 of its response to the consultative document, British Rail made it clear that not only did it not accept the Environment Department's proposal for the 1974 Act before the Act was drafted but even now:
The Board does not consider that this has proved satisfactory and accordingly would wish reconsideration.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be willing to reconsider the basis upon which British Rail is financed.
I want to put to the Minister some points that should be considered in the course of the review. It is time that we considered whether it is appropriate for British Rail to meet trading costs for operating both the passenger and the freight networks and at the same time carry the cost of the permanent way. Many of us feel that it would be an attractive solution if the Government took over the cost of the permanent way, thus creating a more equitable system of financing between road and rail. I do not want to get into the argument about the relative costs of road and rail transport, but if the true costs of the road network were accountable in the same way as British Rail has to account for the costs of all its infrastructure, the economics of road transport might appear very different. I recognise that this is a major step and that we cannot expect anything in anticipation of the White Paper or the statement of Government policy on this matter.
Another possibility which would not require additional finance or serious consideration in Cabinet committees but would make a substantial contribution to putting British Rail on a more stable footing, would be to put the investment programme on a rolling basis rather than on a year-to-year basis. This is already done wth the road programme, which is always 10 years in advance so that we always know the investment programme for 10 years' ahead.
We know British Rail's investment programme only a year or two in advance, and the consultative document does not suggest much of an advance—an increase


from one year to two or three years. That is hardly a major step forward.
British Rail estimates that it could save 10 per cent. if it could forecast its investment programme five years in advance. That would represent a saving of £10 million a year on the investment programme—a substantial sum. Such a saving would benefit not only British Rail but the associated manufacturing, engineering and supply industries too.
We are in danger of forgetting that behind British Rail there are substantial supply and manufacturing industries with far more jobs than the railways alone provide and which make a substantial contribution to our balance of payments by exporting to the many growing rail markets throughout the world. Those industries can survive in a very competitive export market only if they have some security in their home market. Unless we can give them some stability and tell them what they are likely to have to supply in the next three to five years, they will not have that stability at home and will not be able to compete with other countries that give such stability to their manufacturing industries.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is making a long and interesting speech, but so far he has succeeded in totally failing to mention the customer. Does he think that the railways are run entirely for the benefit of supply industries and railwaymen? What is his view of the unfortunate people who have to use the railways? Are their views not in his thinking? Should they not be considered occasionally? Is he aware that they have virtually deserted the railways?

Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to my speech with his usual care and attention, he would have heard me say at the beginning that many of us believe that people are deserting the railways because of the very high fares increases of the past two or three years. I sympathise with the customer. I am a very frequent customer of British Rail and I am conscious of the effect of these fare rises on the customers. If we took the logic of some of the figures that I gave earlier in relation to other countries and we were prepared to subsidise passenger traffic as do Japan, West Germany

and France, for example, we should be able to assist our customers far more than we do at present.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is leaving the Chamber and taking with him the speech that he had been preparing. We were looking forward to it with interest and anticipation. It will be a great loss to the record that we are not to have those words of wisdom in Hansard.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not draw the inference that our system works satisfactorily. It does not. I hope that in the debate on the Transport (Financial Provisions) Bill, if we succeed in getting it into Committee, and in the subsequent debates of the White Paper we shall consider how to provide a system which will give British Rail greater stability and enable it to compete with the road industry on a fairer footing.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. John Cockcroft: After that interesting and thought-provoking speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), I shall say a few words about by impressions of the railways. I have also been to the Continent recently. I discovered—not to my surprise—that every railway in Europe and in the rest of the world makes a loss. The degree of loss is difficult to assess, because of different densities of population and varying income per head of population.
The debate is really about specific plans for specific lines. I am concerned that general subsidies for the railways involve a rather open-ended commitment. Railways will never make a real profit here or in comparable countries. The Beeching era was an improvement on the Robertson era, because, under Beeching some attempt was made to identify those lines which made profits and those which lost on the operation and an attempt was made to allocate overheads from the centre. Before Beeching there was little idea about which lines made a profit and which lost money.
Every Government have sought to isolate and identify the cost of each railway line and to provide specific subsidies for specific lines, but in the last decade the problem of allocating central overheads has remained. There has also been the


problem of balance between freight and passenger services, many of which run on the same lines. An attempt must be made to solve that problem, although the answers will never be perfect.
The fundamental problem is that the taxpayers' commitment to the railways has become open-ended. There have been successive writings-off of their capital, so that now it is impossible to lay down realistic criteria to judge the investment results from one year to another. Despite these difficulties, it is essential to identify individual loss-making lines and to decide on what basis so-called "socially desirable" lines should be subsidised, whether from central or local funds.
It is essential for morale, both of management and employees, that there be definite criteria for assessing the finances of British Rail. It is also essential that British Rail identifies the costs of its own operations and decides how to cover most of them, at least, otherwise, management will become impossible.
No one can accurately assess the cost of road traffic congestion. That is the strong case for maintaining the railway network at roughly its present size. The question of relative track costs is endemic and fundamental to the debate. The railways pay for their own track costs in so far as they are not subsidised. Buses and lorries, on the other hand, are not subsidised in the same way. Although their operators pay heavy taxes, they do not pay directly for their own track costs. Their marginal costs are very much less than those of the railways. That is the fundamental problem. We shall probably never resolve it, but at least it helps to recognise what the problem is.
There is also the fact that freight services apparently pay only their avoidable marginal costs. On the other hand, to that extent they are cross-subsidised by the passenger services, and to that extent the passenger services of British Rail appear to lose more money than, in real terms, they probably do. That, again, is a fundamental point.
Finally, I make the plea that we should bear in mind that, in a way, the problems that we are discussing are insoluble and under no Government shall we find a perfect answer. Sub-Committee

A of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries should have the maximum possible information about these matters, which to some extent are intangible, and more homework should be done, as far as possible, by British Railways themselves.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Ted Lead bitter: On a matter as important as this, the first observation that one should make is that it is regrettable—I go no further than that—that the debate is taking place at this late hour and in a short and restricted period. The debate concerns a large amount of money and a very important service.
My second regret is that because of the shortness of time Members are not able, whatever overall views they hold, to attribute to those who work in the rail industry the great credit that they deserve. Apart from the party political cut and thrust of things in the House, all of us, throughout the country, must pay due regard to their work. In my experience, those who work in our nationalised industries—British Rail, the coal industry, electricity, gas, and so on—have never had from the House of Commons, in full—because of the intensity of the party political points—the compliments that ought to be paid to them for the manner in which they have transformed those services from the dead hand of private enterprise, which so long ago did not even give the shareholders a fair return for their investment.
Therefore, before anything else is said, the ordinary British working people in those industries, no matter how we may think that they manage, must have from this House that signal compliment for which they have long been waiting.
The third regret that I must mention is that we are here looking at a condition of payment that falls in line with the requirements of EEC Regulations Nos. 1191/69 and 1192/69, which are dated June 1969. The House of Commons is ill-prepared to be able to appreciate the implications of these very complicated documents in a debate such as this. They have been available in the Vote Office, but had it not been for the draft instrument drawing my attention to them, I should not have thought myself able to ask for documents dated so many years ago.


I am mindful of the fact that the Government, by virtue of the Railways Act 1974, particularly Section 3, with which we are dealing, would have these documents in mind. It is becoming a point about which the House should be concerned. The House appears to be helpless in dealing with their implications of EEC documents. We are therefore denied a knowledge of what they mean.
I must point out that in Regulation No. 1191/69, Article 1, there is this very unhappy paragraph:
Member States shall terminate all obligations inherent in the concept of a public service as defined in this Regulation imposed on transport by rail, road and inland waterway.
I find those words ominous. As a Socialist, I have always looked upon the idea of nationalising an industry as carrying with it the concept that it must provide a public service. Otherwise, it does not make sense to me.
My fourth regret is that we have not had before us the kind of financial account that helps us make a true evaluation. That is a matter to be discussed at another time, when we can debate the whole question of transport policy. My hon. Friend the Minister has an important stake in the Northern Region, where we have transport problems. I take it for granted that, as Minister, he has looked at the matter with care and has given the House an honest appraisal.
My hon. Friend underlined his submission by saying that we were talking about the conditions written into the 1974 Act, and that therefore the amount of money sought in the order was already calculated in principle by the House two years ago. Accordingly, we are really concerned with how the money will be spent over, I presume, the next two years, and we are given a breathing space. I shall not repeat anything of the excellent, detailed speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), who has given us sufficient food for thought in our discussion of the whole question of transport policy over those two years.
The fundamental question is how best, although we are in the Common Market, to provide a transport service that is a public service and to evaluate the costings of rail as compared with road and

seek to provide equitable accountancy treatment, so that we do not have the disparities that become the subject of party political warfare. A part of the assistance to the rail service goes towards the cost of the upkeep of rail crossings; there is a contribution towards pensions; and there is further financial aid for dealing with freight. We must bear in mind that all the costs of rail services, such as the railroad, policing, lighting and manning, are in many respects costs that we do not consider when we think of our road services.
We must see how best to harmonise our road and rail services. Some of my colleagues with a special interest in transport belong, as I do, to our Transport Sub-Committee. Our chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) is present tonight. For the past year and more we have been discussing how best to have an integrated transport service. I am the first to agree that "integration" is perhaps the wrong word to use, but our language is very limited and for the purposes of a small debate such as this it is the best word to put over my point.
We must bear in mind that our rail services will never be profit-making, because of factors that are found throughout the world. Not only must we harmonise road and rail costings, to put that in perspective; we must consider another necessary form of harmonisation. Forms of communication and technology are changing so rapidly that we must have an interface of road, rail, air and sea transport. The ports and airports must be brought into these costings to give them an international as well as internal point and purpose, and give a guide to efficiency.
As I indicated, these few remarks are complementary to the outstanding and detailed speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport and I hope that he will take them into account. Two years will pass all too quickly, and he should take some of these ideas on board.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) championed British Rail fluently and well, but


they seemed to presume that the Conservatives do not approciate the achievements of British Rail—although, to be fair, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central complimented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on mentioning those achievements. My hon. Friend is not the only Conservative who has done so; I, too, acknowledge British Rail's achievements, and also the loyalty of a work force that is quite unique in this country—and I say that in no patronising spirit but because it happens to be true.
In this short debate I shall try to help us reach some sort of rapport on the future of transport. I suggest to the hon. Member for Hartlepool that in this third decade of nationalisation we should forget the evils or otherwise, of the private owners and get on with the future, bearing in mind that we would probably all agree that very few people would buy the enterprise anyway, and that it will remain publicly owned, whoever are in Government.
How are we to get value for money—money that this House and the Government, whichever party is in power, will have to provide? How can we best control the money as a House, bearing in mind that we have the prime responsibility?
In finding an answer to the question how we get value for money, there is a desperate need—this is where successive Governments have failed—for a stable planning base for British Rail. I agree with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said in that respect. Until we get that, we shall get nowhere. This debate, and any major debate on British Rail and transport generally, will fail unless we accomplish it. I welcome the coming White Paper on transport. I hope that we shall be able to achieve—we must, if we are to get anywhere—a reasonable spirit of bipartisanship on British Rail and the White Paper.
Naturally, we shall differ. The Conservatives will go more for competition, while Labour will go more for the public service angle. But I feel that in the debate we have already set the pattern for a bipartisan approach. It is now our responsibility to establish it, because if we do not I am afraid that there will be

no stable planning base for British Rail—it is as simple as that.
A depressing feature of British Rail has been the constant changes of policy as Governments have changed and as enactments have followed repeals and repeals have followed enactments. The people are sick of it. Now we have an almost unique opportunity to settle our difference and pioneer the way to providing for British Rail something that can last—something that through five changes of Government, 14 Ministers of Transport and seven chairmen of British Rail since nationalisation, we have not achieved. We must get it right this time.
In this debate about the amount of money to be made available for rail, a slight slanging match is developing between road and rail and also between trade unions representing different sides, employers representing different sides, and the public and private sectors. Frankly, the Government, the private and public sectors and the trade unions must cooperate.
The lobbies that all politicians face are formidable. There are probably more lobbies in the transport sector than in any other. In the end, the Government must decide. Great and lasting strength will be given to the decision if it has the backing and is with the consent of this House.
I turn now to the second point, which concerns financial accountability and who should control these grants. There is something depressing about being here for one and a half hours talking about £600 million. It is a sobering thought. I appreciate that this is the second tranche and that it has already been discussed. But how can we control this £600 million, or even £5, with the kind of proceeding in which we are indulging?
We should address our minds—I should be interested if somebody picks up this point on either side of the House—to the question who is the best body to be responsible for the accountability that we must have. It cannot, at the end of the day, be the Government. The Government, the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary and the Department will make ultimate decisions but their difficulty is that they cannot unduly interfere with the day-to-day running of any nationalised industry—that is against the whole ethos


of our nationalisation—although they have power to intervene, and will no doubt do so, on major questions.
On accountability and control, I should like to refer to the most effective body to carry out those functions, which surely would be this House. I may be contradicted, but I think that we are failing in this sphere, as in so many other spheres, by our procedures to control effectively not only the Government but all these great nationalised and Government sectors that are daily growing and getting stronger.
Apart from the proceedings in this Chamber, which, however many good points are raised, we all know do not effectively control anything, we come to the idea of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries or Select Committees generally. With due humility, because I have not yet served on one of these Select Committees, I have my doubts about their efficacy. I say that because of what I have leaned from talking to many who have served on such Committees and of having seen them in operation. Indeed, in a recent conversation with a senior executive—not of British Rail but of a nationalised body of almost equal distinction—he said that, on his personal appearance before that body, he appreciated its expertise, the ability of its Members, and so on, but "It never put me in any trouble at all. It never touched my housekeeping." Surely that is what we are dealing with today—a rather large sum of housekeeping. If that Committee, which has done a lot of good work, cannot touch that gentleman's housekeeping, frankly, it has not got a chance of touching British Rail's housekeeping either.
I do not want to get distracted into an analysis of the efficacy of Select Committees, but I should like to add one comment about them. Unless there is a controlled form of questioning by at least one individual who is properly briefed and has the back-up—not just an odd retired civil servant, but a person with the proper back-up to be able to put questions that can be followed by the members of the Committee—there is no hope.
At the moment we have the added complication that even if they do a good job,—which they frequently do—nobody

least of all the Government of the day, takes the least bit of notice of them. Unless we do something about it, there will be no effective way of stopping many more one-and-a-half-hour debates on this as on other subjects.
Finally, I want to make clear a brief comment about one aspect of British Rail, it is one that has mainly been covered. One accepts the social needs of the railway service, that some parts are loss-makers, but we must have an accounting system that identifies what is uneconomic. Above all, someone must have the power to find out why and to oversee a massive and continuing public investment. The most effective body to do that—at the end of the day, virtually the only one—is this House. It is on this sort of thing that we shall be judged in future.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) has put his finger on a very important point. So important in general terms is the performance of a publicly owned body vis-àvis this House and the consumers that I have not the time to follow him down that path.
There has been an extraordinary unanimity tonight, but there are differences and the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Cockcroft) put his finger on one. Both he and the hon. Member for Leominster wanted the loss-making lines singled out individually. That is a difficult process and has always been shown to be so. Dr. Beeching did not get it right, nor has any subsequent formula. That is why we have the present global approach.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) mentioned the distinction between freight and passenger costs in the United States, but there the amount of passenger revenue relative to freight is very small. Many of the freight lines crawl along at 20 m.p.h. The situation is not comparable.
The essence of the order is the £300 million that we are asked to agree to spend. In a debate on, I think, 12th November, I said that more than 40 per cent. of British Rail income comes from London and the South-East. Therefore, even assuming that the support is rather less in that area, services there will probably get about £100 million from the


order. As they say in football commentaries, I am glad to welcome the Secretary of State for Transport, who has joined the closing minutes of the debate. We are glad to see him here. This is a large sum. The Government cannot now say that the day-to-day administration, in the sense of commercial policy of the railways, is not a matter for them.
An angle of railways policy that has not so far been brought out tonight is its connection with the inner city problem, which is now engaging the attention of the Department of the Environment. If £100 million of public money is available to support the vital rail services of London and the South-East, that money should be complementary to keeping alive the central areas of London, especially the older areas. I am sure that that is a point of which Ministers are seized. It is not vital that the trains should run half empty half the day, but if that capital investment is there it should be used properly.
In my constituency, British Rail on my suggestion and that of the borough council has recently produced a very nice leaflet, which is being delivered to people's homes, about a new service between North Woolwich and Stratford. The journey lasts 14 minutes and is almost all within the dockland area. But the charge is 28p—1p for every 30 seconds. That beats the cost of almost all commuter routes argued about in this House. If I wish to go from North Woolwich to Tottenham, it costs 52p single or 101p— over £1—return, in a very small area of North-East London. Would it not be possible to devise a commercial arrangement whereby one could get unlimited travel on that line for a round sum per month or per week? Some of the considerations mentioned in the debate on 12th November should be applied to inner London. We are now beyond the stage at which these two matters could be considered separately.
This has been an interesting debate. We are now beginning to get some sort of consensus about what transport we want in our inner city and inner London areas, and we should like to know what the Minister has in mind.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall speak for only a few minutes. I should like to take up one point in the EEC document. Article 2(1) says:
Public service obligations' means obligations which the transport undertaking in question, if it were considering its own commercial interests, would not assume or would not assume to the same extent or under the same conditions.
That is a crucial explanation of the money that tonight we are giving to British Rail.
Of course British Rail deserves our congratulations on keeping within its target of expenditure, but whether it achieves that target is within our hands. If we accept the public service obligation as in the directive, what is the obligation that we have asked of British Rail? This has never been spelled out adequately by any Minister for Transport—at least, not while I have been in the House.
We all saw a letter in The Times from Mr. Parker, Chairman of British Railways, dealing with the problem of commuter fares and the difficulties facing him in trying to come to terms with the impossible problem of the two great peaks in the South-East as the commuter comes into and goes out of London. I have today been in the North-East, in Newcastle, hearing details of the problems there and listening to the success story, which is just what it is. But what has stuck in my mind this week has been the words of Mr. Parker—that if we are not careful we shall have a freeze-up on British Rail because of a lack of investment.
When we are talking about public service obligation compensation to British Rail are we thinking simply, as I fear we are, of only the short term and not the long term, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) urged so forcefully in an excellent speech in which he was kind enough to refer to me? If we are thinking of British Rail simply on an area-by-area basis, if we are posing the question posed in the Government's Orange Paper—
Would the available funds be better spent on modernising and improving the railway system—or on subsidies to keep fares down"—


as though those were options—we are frankly not coming to terms with the financing of British Rail as we should be looking at it for the future.
With the White Paper so nearly upon us, thoughts of the sort that I am expressing will be met by facts or promises for the future. What has been said tonight has cut across party divisions in the House. My plea to the Minister is that he should end this hand-to-mouth living of British Rail and give it a future, which will involve investment as well as an obligation that it faces and meets. We should say that we are prepared to finance British Rail in this regard instead of seeing it as a cause for criticism.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. Horam: The general flavour of the debate has been one of remarkably full agreement between the two sides of the House—a rapport as one hon. Member described it, or a bipartisan spirit, which has underlined the importance that hon. Members attach to the railways. Secondly, there has been a desire to lay down a duty for the railways, that will receive support from the Government and provide a proper basis for long-term planning. I welcome the general tenor of the speeches from both sides of the House. Some hon. Members have apologised to me for not being able to be here for the end of the debate, and I apologise to those hon. Members whose speeches I shall not be able to mention in the five minutes available to me.
I was struck by the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about our inner cities. As it happens, I am a member of the committee that is looking into the problem of the inner cities, and it is an extremely important problem. The connection between planning and transport, in respect of which the transport consultative document has been criticised, is one to which my right hon. Friend and I are paying great attention. I take account of what my hon. Friend said, because it introduced an important dimension to the debate which otherwise was lacking.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) went in some detail into the figuring of the railways, but, if I may pull him up on one aspect, he made a mistake when he implied that investment was an amount added to what we gave the rail-

ways under the public service obligation grant.

Mr. Norman Fowler: indicated dissent.

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman does not agree, apparently, but I got that impression from what he said. In fact, support for the investment is paid from the grant which we are voting here. Therefore, it is covered by it and has not to be added to it. One sometimes sees figures suggesting that the passenger railway grant is far larger than the£300 million which we are discussing, but that is not the case.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield nevertheless complained about the money being voted to the railways—a consequence of the 1974 Act which itself had a great deal of bipartisan support. following as it did from the 1973 review conducted by the previous Government. At the same time, the hon. Member talked about the hard-hit commuter. But he cannot have it both ways. Either we subsidise commuter lines or we do not, and I do not think that it is right to try to have it both ways, as the hon. Gentleman was attempting to do. Indeed, he tried to have it three ways, because he went on to complain about the amount of taxation that we were imposing through measures of this kind. That is taking the usual Opposition line on these matters to an extreme which the Government cannot possibly support.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was rather less than fair in his comments on the railways' achievements in meeting their targets. As my hon. Friend said, it is rare for someone to be given a fairly clear target over a period of years—£300 million in real terms each year—and to come literally within £l million or £2 million of it either way at the end of each 12 months with absolutely minimal adjustments being made. As a piece of forecasting and a piece of management and union achievement, it is probably quite outstanding in the history of any industry, whether private or nationalised, and probably also in the history of any Government. That is a matter on which the railways are to be congratulated.
Despite this, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield maintained that the system was unsatisfactory, and some of my


hon. Friends echoed his remarks. He advocated a return to the 1968 Act, although he said that it was not perfect. It was interesting to hear that, after all the years of ferocious fighting about the 1968 Act. Hon. Members will recall that it was the measure which, until the Housing Finance Bill, had the longest Committee stage in the history of this House. Given the accolade that the hon. Gentleman now accords it, it is surprising that it was contested quite as much as it was. But he will remember that that legislation was abandoned by this Government in respect of this railway grant, following the review of his own Government.
There were reasons for that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said, there are problems with allocating costs in this way. Indeed, there are problems in whichever way we consider British Rail costs. It is a genuinely difficult problem. The problem of joint costs is well known, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field should claim so glibly that these matters can be dealt with over-night and that if we had a fully allocated cost
system—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the
motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the British Railways Board (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th January 1977, be approved.

Orders of the Day — VACCINE-DAMAGED CHILDREN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Behind the call for compensation for vaccine-damaged children lies a story of Government incompetence, neglect and even deceit. Healthy children whose lives have been shattered by blindness, deafness, paralysis or screaming convulsions have been brushed aside by successive

Governments. The risks of vaccination have been hidden from their parents. And unsuspecting families have become the tragic victims of crass official ineptitude.
As a result, the whole of the crucial immunisation programme is now in jeopardy. The parents of gravely damaged children are angry at being deceived and are no longer willing to be brushed aside by feeble excuses from a procrastingating Government. Consequently other parents up and down the land are losing faith in all immunisation, thereby risking the health and lives of their children. They are apprehensive about all vaccines and resentful that a Government can advocate an immunisation programme yet shirk their responsibility when things go wrong. They want to know the truth about the risks, however small these happen to be, and an assurance of compensation if damage is to be caused. I want to emphasise my strong support for the immunisation scheme and urge people to support it. The widest publicity should be given to the availability of the double vaccine and the people should be told that they can have the diphtheria-tetanus vaccines without the whooping cough element if they wish.
Despite craftily-worded Government denials, the main beneficiary of the immunisation programme is society. It is not only the individual who benefits but the community at large, through a high level of population immunity, yet the risk is all to the individual. This large social element is completely ignored by the Government in their attempts to wriggle clear of their clear moral responsibilities to pay compensation to damaged children.
The record of successive Governments on the issue of immunisation and compensation is an appalling one. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, clear warnings were given in authoritative medical reports about the possibility of infrequent but serious reactions to the whooping cough vaccine. Yet for many years the Government advocated this vaccine and made no mention of these risks in their circulars to local authorities. Parents were officially given no hints of any dangers whatever.
When I first raised this matter in the House, one Minister loftily replied that


it was a moot point how far it was desirable to do more than warn individuals or parents about possible risks when they were exceedingly remote. He did not disclose to the House that he had no idea what the real figures were and, therefore, had no justification for using the word "remote". Thus a policy of deliberate deception of parents was supported on the patronising grounds that Big Brother Government knew best, even though it now transpires that they knew very little.
And what of the present Government? They are working in conjunction with a group of men who labour under the imposing title of the Joint Committee on Immunisation and Vaccination. That committee, in turn, relies to some extent on the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Would you not think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that with all those officials, not to mention all the advisers at the beck and call of the Secretary of State, the children would be safe?
Parents should be able to sit back and listen to the gospel without a shadow of doubt crossing their minds. They obviously waited with bated breath for the Secretary of State to make his considered official pronouncement in answer to my question last Tuesday.
In that statement my right hon. Friend said that the joint committee, chaired by Professor Sir Charles Stuart-Harris, in whom he said he had complete confidence, had told him that the gains from whooping cough vaccine greatly outweighed the risks. It was also claimed that only two children per year were damaged by whooping cough vaccine. That was a clear and unambiguous statement.
But then the ugly facts of life intruded and made nonsense of those dogmatic claims. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the chairman of the Joint Committee were presumably relying mainly on the fact that only 22 cases of vaccine brain damage were reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines in the years 1964–75, yet the Department has admitted that the majority of adverse reactions are not reported to the committee by doctors. It has also admitted that its information is insufficient to make reliable estimates. The quotations are available on request. How, then, can it be claimed that only

two children a year are brain-damaged by the whooping cough vaccine, especially as there were more cases of vaccine brain damage in one London children's hospital alone in the 11 years 1961–72 than were reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines by all the doctors in Britain? The truth is that the committee and the Government simply do not know.
The House and parents are entitled to a full public explanation from Sir Charles Stuart-Harris of his statement that the gains of the whooping cough vaccine outweigh the risks, and he must justify it or withdraw it.
But my allegations against Sir Charles go much further than that. He has now, in The Sunday Times, implied that doctors reporting vaccine damage to the Committee on Safety of Medicines are fools or liars. In answer to a question on adverse reaction and death due to vaccines, and reported by doctors, he said that many of them were not likely to have any connection with vaccination. What on earth are parents to make of that? Are all these doctors crazy—or is the chairman of the Joint Committee crazy? How could he make such an allegation? How does he know? When did he make this startling discovery? And what has he done about it? We must have the truth—and it is the job of the Secretary of State to ascertain it by ordering an independent inquiry into the whooping cough vaccine.
But the Secretary of State himself has some answering to do. He told the House that Sir Charles's Joint Committee estimated that an average of four children get brain damage from whooping cough itself each year. Naturally, the House and I took my right hon. Friend at his word. But in the interview which I have quoted, Sir Charles said that he was not consulted over the figure and that he did not provide it. In other words, he is accusing the Secretary of State of misleading the House into thinking that Sir Charles had provided the figures. I do not need to underline the gravity of that charge, made not by me but by the chairman of the Joint Committee. I invite my right hon. Friend to reply.
I also invite my right hon. Friend to confirm that there will be some 20,000 to 30,000 cases of whooping cough next year because it is the fourth year of the


cycle, and that chances of a child getting the disease are related more to the children's living conditions than to whether they have been immunised. Will he also confirm that virtually all deaths from whooping cough occur in babies less than a year old, who are too young to be immunised? Equally, if not more important, will he tell all parents that no one can responsibly and positively assure them that the risks of brain damage to their children will be outweighed by the gains, given the present inadequate state of medical knowledge and the present confusion about the statistics? The Joint Committee may have guessed right or wrong, but there is simply no evidence for categorical assertions. If the Secretary of State rejects these invitations and categorically maintains that the gains still outweigh the risks, despite what I have said, he will be saddling himself with a political albatross for life.
My right hon. Friend has already gone on record with reasons for delaying compensation. His two-point sentence about delaying compensation for vaccine damage reads:
But this is by no means the only case where medical action can cause unforeseen damage or where Governments have urged people to use some particular part of the Health Service."—[Official Report, 8th February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 1228.]
That was disingenuous to the point of total absurdity or political naivety. He can take his choice. I am saying that it is unique in so far as the community benefits and the individual takes all the risks.
The other two excuses for prevarication are that we are waiting for Pearson's Royal Commission on Civil Liability, and that picking off bits of problems would produce glaring anomalies and blatant contradictions. If, however, Pearson decides against compensation for these children the Department cannot possibly reject parliamentary and public opinion which favours it—not even a Department as arrogant, dogmatic and intransigent as this one. If Pearson recommends in favour, it will merely reinforce our case. The only reason for waiting, therefore, is to ingratiate the Secretary of State with the Treasury at the expense of helpless children—a shoddy bargain that no self-respecting Secretary of State should touch with a barge pole.
As for anomalies, they abound already—some of them created by the present Department. There are differential benefits for handicapped people, an industrial injuries scheme, a pneumoconiosis scheme, an occupational sickness scheme, earnings-related benefits and a criminal injuries scheme. While they exist, I suggest that the Secretary of State refrains from using anomalies as a delaying tactic for not granting compensation to vaccine-damaged children.
Six other countries already have compensation schemes. Although they vary, they boldly accept the principle that terrifies this Government. We should have given a lead to the world, but we failed. At least we can follow as gracefully as possible without being dragged kicking and screaming into the arena of genuine compassion.
The Secretary of State has all the cards in his hands in fighting a few hundred helpless children. He has a powerful Department, scores of advisers, a determined Treasury, and Government colleagues who will support him in the Cabinet. He may well have been advised—or have decided that if he digs his heels in, and, of course, makes sympathetic noises the storm will blow itself out, that he will emerge politically unscathed and that he is bound to win in the end. If that is what he really thinks, I suggest that he should think again.

12 midnight.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) spoke with some passion. I expect that of him. He accused me and my Department of being arrogant and dogmatic. I have rarely heard a presentation of a case which was itself more arrogant and dogmatic than were the words used by my hon. Friend, and I regret that that should have happened.
I am surprised that my hon. Friend assumes that I have any less compassion or understanding than he has, or imagines that I care less than he does. My experience in the period when I was out of Parliament gives the lie to that. I am also surprised that he should assume that somehow or other he is right and that my Department, my advisers and I are all wrong—and, indeed, that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation,


which consists of 22 of the most distinguished persons in the country, is also wrong in its conclusions.
The first point made by my hon. Friend concerned compensation for children damaged by vaccination. I have given a great deal of thought to this matter and my conclusion remains, as I said in the House last week, that it would not be right to come to a decision before considering the report of the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury. That Royal Commission is examining the whole area of no-fault liability for personal injury. It would be wrong to single out any one group of people who have suffered damage—for example, to discriminate between one set of brain-damaged children and another—when the Commission is expected to report in a matter of months.
The point has been made that an exception should be made for those children because, it is said, the Government encouraged their parents to have them vaccinated and that, therefore, there is some special obligation on the Government. But I have pointed out on a number of occasions that vaccination is by no means the only procedure that my Department encourages. For example, we recommend regular dental check-ups and treatment. There is always the small chance of serious damage from an anaesthetic. All these matters, and the principles relating to them, have to be considered together. These are all issues that the Royal Commission is examining.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not accept the force of these arguments. I hope he will recognise that they are widely accepted by others who are concerned, as he is, about the plight of these children. Certainly my hon. Friend will have noticed the thoughtful editorials in The Guardian and Observer newspapers last weekend on this matter.
The issue of compensation is quite separate in principle from the question of whether to continue a vaccination programme. I know that in campaigning for compensation my hon. Friend is not campaigning against all vaccination. But, although the issues are separate in principle, there is an unfortunate connection in practice. The barrage of publicity about the small number of children who,

sadly, may have been damaged by whooping cough vaccine has frightened many parents off all vaccines. I make no criticism of my hon. Friend on this score, although by insisting that he is right and that the medical experts are wrong he is creating serious dangers for children whose health and lives may be put at stake.
Last week I gave the House some alarming figures about the fall in the number of children being immunised against polio, diphtheria and tetanus, as well as whooping cough. I warned parents of the dangers. I am grateful to the newspapers, radio and television for the publicity they gave to my appeal to parents not to turn their backs on vaccination.
Yesterday there was a more dramatic warning than any Minister can give. We heard from Stockton that a five-year-old boy had contracted poliomyelitis. Now, thousands of parents in the area are worried that their own children could be next. Suddenly they realise the value of vaccination against diseases that only a few years ago used to kill or cripple so many of our children. People seem to think that polio and those other diseases have gone for ever, but they have not. The risk is always there.
The Stockton case—it is not the only recent case in the country—emphasises the continuing threat from this serious disease. The level of vaccination against poliomyelitis in the Cleveland area is only 60–70 per cent. and the position there reflects the decline in recent years in the country as a whole.
Immediate steps are now being taken to immunise the whole family, contacts of the family and local schoolchildren. In fact, thousands of children in the area are now being vaccinated. But the fact remains that one five-year-old boy now has a paralysed leg. Surely the right answer is for parents to have their children vaccinated before the damage is done.
I warmly welcome the statement made by the British Medical Association in support of the decision that I took last week. There is no getting away from the fact that there are risks associated with all vaccines, as with any effective drug. But in the case of vaccines recommended routinely, the benefits far outweigh the risks. That is why they are recommended.


I am advised on these matters by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, composed of foremost experts in the field. So far as whooping cough vaccine is concerned, their advice is quite clear. I deplore and resent the allegations made againt Sir Charles Stuart-Harris and his committee. They are people who are professionally as well as personally dedicated to the safety and welfare of children, and it is grossly unfair of my hon. Friend in some way to impugn their integrity and knowledge. On whooping cough vaccine the committee's advice is clear. It is that because the gains far outweigh the risks we should continue our policy of offering vaccine to our children, and that is precisely what the BMA said in its announcement today.
I emphasise again that whooping cough vaccination is not appropriate in certain cases—for instance, where the child has a history of fits, convulsions or epilepsy, or is suffering from an acute illness. These are matters on which doctors can advise. They are aware of the dangers and are ready to discuss them with parents, and a great deal of information has been provided for doctors over the years. In cases where there are indications against whooping cough vaccine, it should not be given. Even in these cases, however, parents should not abandon the other vaccinations—polio, diphtheria, and so on—without talking to their doctors.
There has been much dispute about the exact size of the risks and how they are estimated. I have seen figures in the Press suggesting that one child in 5,000 or one in 10,000 is brain-damaged by whooping cough vaccine. I told the House last week, in answering questions following my statement, that the incidence of brain damage was much lower than this. I gave the figure of one child in every 300,000 vaccinated, or about two children a year.
My hon. Friend has questioned that estimate. It has been arrived at by comparing the annual uptake of vaccination with the figures of brain damage received in reports to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. During the 11 years 1964–74, a total of 22 cases of serious brain damage, including six deaths, was reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines following the administration of vaccine containing a whooping cough

component. During the same period 6,900,000 children received basic courses of whooping cough immunisation. This gives a ratio or one serious case of brain damage to approximately 300,000 children vaccinated.
The Joint Committee has accepted this as the best estimate available, though it was reluctant to announce the estimate because it was not derived from a properly conducted study of adequate proportions such as those now being undertaken on the committee's behalf—Sir Charles Stuart-Harris was in no way accusing me of misleading the House. His committee accepts the figure that I gave as the best estimate available. I should remind the House that a continuing study in the North-West Thames Region has shown that out of 80,000 vaccinations containing a whooping cough component there has not been a single case of brain damage.

My hon. Friend has claimed that one case of brain damage in 300,000 cannot be a valid figure because many adverse reactions have not been reported to the committee. I accept that not all adverse reactions are reported. Because of this, the estimate could be on the low side. On the other hand, some of the cases of damage taken account of in arriving at the estimate may not in fact be due to vaccine. Nor is it known in all these cases that the damage is permanent. Of course, the adverse reactions reporting system—the yellow card scheme—it is not perfect, but it is widely recognised as one of the best in the world. I want to make it as effective as possible. That is why I am reminding doctors to pay particular attention to the need to report any cases of damage attributed to vaccine.
My hon. Friend has once again raised the question of what he calls an independent inquiry into the safety and efficacy of the whooping cough vaccine. I dealt with this point last week in the House when my hon. Friend raised it following my statement.
I have reflected on it since, and I cannot see that any useful purpose could be served by setting up a new inquiry. The fact is that, despite my hon. Friend's derogatory remarks about this distinguished group of experts, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is an independent body which keeps the


vaccination programme under constant review.
The Joint Committee has all the information at its disposal. There is no information that my hon. Friend can produce that it not available to the committee. It is arrogant and dangerous of my hon. Friend to suggest that he has knowledge that is not at the committee's disposal or that he reaches conclusions that are totally contrary to the conclusions unanimously reached by the committee that advises me.
My hon. Friend and I are not doctors. We have to accept the advice of experts, and the experts who advise me are the most distinguished in the land. There is no reason for my hon. Friend to make imputations against the efficacy of the decisions they have taken. They have all the information, and their conclusions are unanimous.
In addition, there is the Committee on Review of Medicines. This committee is undertaking a systematic examination of every drug on the market. One of the first group it is looking at is vaccines—including, of course, whooping cough vaccine. In these circumstances, I cannot see

that a separate inquiry of the kind my hon. Friend is seeking could add anything.
In conclusion, may I underline this week's warning by Sir Charles Stuart-Harris that there is a real danger of a rise in the incidence of whooping cough in the next year or two if vaccination rates are not increased. Parents really must face the dangers that might arise if their children are not vaccinated against whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus and polio.
I say to all parents throughout the country, if it is possible to do that from this Dispatch Box, that they should not be mislead by statements made—no doubt in great sincerity and integrity—by my hon. Friend, otherwise they will put the safety of their children at risk.

Mr. Ashley: That was a shabby and squalid speech. The Minister should be ashamed of himself. He did not answer a single question that I put to him. It was shocking.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock